Friday, February 1, 2008

Answers, Answers

When we ask questions like the ones I talked about in my Questions, Questions post, we reveal our biases. This is even more true when we answer the questions.

I'm taking these answers from blog to which I link in my Questions, Questions post, and since I can't directly link to the parts of the comments I want you to see, I'll quote them here for you:
But by the time working class/degreeless adults walk through our meetingroom doors, they've likely been exposed to the more black-and-white thinking all their life that somehow works for them as adults. And without an education or role-modeling that teaches them to think beyond short-term, tangible results, won't they be lost in the abstract critical thinking and philosphizing that goes on during fellowship hour? from LizOpp
Really? Working class/degreeless adults in Meeting need education from privileged folks like you? Working class/degreeless adults need to learn a better way to be and only privileged people know what that better way is?

One mistake middle and owning class Friends make when relating with poor and working class people is paternalism, which, according to is defined as "the system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children."

It's good to be benevolent, isn't it? But don't we know that benevolence can go too far? Like, say, telling a working class or poor person that the middle class way of doing things is better.
One of the hallmarks of Quaker theology (as I understand it) is the ability to live in the moment and the Presence, even if that means dealing with the tensions of not having answers or not knowing. Most educatiors would say that living in such ambiguity is a sophisticated place developmentally. from Omar P.
My first response to reading this was "So then what in the world drew so many poor people to early Quakerism? What in the world drew unsophisticated me? Free coffee and cookies after Meeting?"

Is Omar really saying that God should only be accessible to the intellectual elite?

Nope. it's paternalism again. But his answer also reveals an intellectual arrogance that keeps poor and working class people away. The Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church and the Baptist Church all accept different levels of engagement, from going to church and doing as the minister or priest says, to intellectual book groups. In those churches, God is accessible to everyone.

It's still very hard for me to "live in the moment and the Presence," but when I do and can, it's more rewarding than any other church service I've ever attended. I had to learn to do it, but I did it on my own terms and in my own way. If I'd read Omar's post when I first came to Meeting, I would have left because I was not intellectually as advanced as him (and most people in Meeting). I worry that other working class or poor people will read his statement and unnecessarily choose not to go to Meeting. I worry that other Friends are saying similar statements because it's so appealing to acquiesce to an academic authority.

Most Friends to whom I've talked says it's hard for them to acquiesce to God's will. Giving in to the will of an authority is something many working class people understand because it's what the system has taught us to do. Why isn't this talked about as a Quaker theological asset, as something working class people have to teach privileged Friends whose entitlement gives them the idea they get to pick and choose what's convenient for their lives?
When you receive a messege, run it through your mind a few times. Can you use a simpler word? Can you drop, or at least quickly explain, an obscure reference? Would a child understand it? Or at least a teenager? from Jim
Jim grew up working class so I was at first confused by his comment. Then I went to his web page and saw that he has a PhD in mathematics. He seems to have acclimated well into middle class life (and now that he's retired at 36, an owning class life). Then I realized he might have meant what he said.

What's that definition of paternalism again? Something about managing children?

Poor and working class people aren't children. I know some working class people who are better read and more articulate than some middle class people I know. So please don't talk down to them or anyone. You can, however, not assume that everyone in the room knows everything you do. Especially if you're well-educated.


I shared a much shorter version of this post with one Friend (no, not my partner) and she called it rude. According to, one definition of "rude" is "without culture, learning, or refinement."

Hmmmm. I guess I have some learnin' and refinin' and culturin' to do.

(And if you're not getting the irony, find a clued-in middle or owning class person to explain it to you).


Tania said...

Jeanne, you have an uncanny knack for calling people out on their biases. I admire you for that.

Jeanne said...

Thanks so much Tania. Calling people out on their stuff has gotten me called all sorts of not-so-nice names. It's nice to be acknowledged positively for doing so.

Allison said...

Yes! Down the patriarchy!

BTW, this is a funny web site:

Lone Star Ma said...

While I agree about the biases, I think it is a lot easier to be mad about paternalism than to cease being paternalistic. I am concerned with class issues all over, but I hope to respect everyone's seeking (more of that Quaker jargon). None of us sound - or are - as enlightened as we'd like to be. Now I'm rude. Sorry.

Jeanne said...

Lone Star Ma,

Why should respect for others' seeking include my silence?

One of the people I quote above is my partner. I pointed her booboo out to her and she saw the error of her ways. She's embarrassed but accepts that I was right in pointing it out to her.


Lone Star Ma said...

I don't think anyone should be silent and I thoroughly approve (as if anyone needed my approval) of the points you made. I do think that we speak our truths more effectively when we do so in a sensitive and respectful manner. As I grow older, I am finding gentler, less confrontational and more effective ways of speaking my truths than is, perhaps, my natural tendency. I am kind of a hothead, really, but it isn't very effective to express myself that way. I sensed that sort of confrontational approach in your posts and feel they are too important for that. Just my opinion, though.

Jeanne said...

Lone Star Ma: Yeah, I have heard that before. And, honestly, I've tried really really hard to be different.

The thing is, when I was at school among other working class folks, people could hear the things I say. They not only *heard* what I said, but appreciated it. My participation in classes and student groups was welcome and encouraged. I was sought out for leadership positions.

This a far, far cry from my experience in Meeting (among middle and owning class people). Instead, at Meeting people told me that I should be nicer, that it would be easier to hear the things I had to say if I could tone it down, be less angry. They used words like "respectful" and "gentle" and "non-confrontational."

I hear that it would be easier to hear the things I say if I were to say them in a more middle class way.

But I'm done judging myself for my anger. I get to be angry about these things. Classism is hurtful and keeps me away from Meeting, away from God. I'm going to still try to use middle-class speak when it seems really important. But I'm not going to stop being who I am.

I promise my next post won't be as confrontational--it's about the theological assets that poor and working class people have.

I won't promise that I won't be angry again.

Until, that is, people finally get that classism is a problem and start fixing it.

Allison said...

You know, even Jesus wasn't always soft-spoken and meek. What's the story of him going into places and overturning tables and chastising priests and pharisees? He was a righteous dude. Jesus was pissed.

I'm gonna bet that Jeanne, even in her angriest state, doesn't go that far.

Lone Star Ma said...

That's probably true(:

And honestly, I don't think the anger is anything to be sorry about - at least I have never found a way not to be angry. I kind of try, but I don't think I'll ever be serene.

I personally have not found that expression divide to be about class so much as age, though, although I have no idea how old you are. I am 36 and I find that my angrier style was more effective when working with younger people (still is when working with younger people) and that I have to be gentler as I try to accomplish things with people in their late 30s and up - though there are exceptions. It's just that I've also found that I usually need the help of the older group to accomplish what I think needs to be done...or maybe I just think that because they're my age now.

earthfreak (Pam) said...

Ok, I'm probably BIG TIME not "getting" something here, but I'm finding that I'm not seeing the problems in what's been quoted here.

I don't remember Liz's post in context, but I don't think that changes it much. The part you quote, as far as I can tell, doesn't say that middle class people know more than working class people about how to be quaker, or automatically creates an up/down way of thinking about who can "do quakerism" right....

It may be an underlying assumption, or have been more evident in the original context (I miss things a lot, I don't know if it's class related or not)

The stuff I've read, including that by working class folks, seems to say that working class folks are more likely to have a black and white worldview, and to be less comfortable with ambiguity or a lack of structure.

*and* it seems that that sort of worldview *is* incompatible with liberal quakerism *as practiced currently*

So, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to bring that up.

The question is whether working class folks have to *learn* how to do quakerism "right" - or if there's something we're assuming is inherent in liberal quakerism (a complete shades-of-grey-ness?) that really isn't or shouldn't be?

The question of, so, what's next? is separate from the stating of the original problem.

So, what am I missing?

I'm also baffled by your take on Jim's comment, likely because I might have said EXACTLY what he said (heck, I probalby have...)

Jeanne, you and I have talked about the tendency of messages in worship to sound like college lectures, or use unnecessarily big words (haven't we?) and how alienating it can be. It's alienating to me too, I know most of the words, but I think they're annoying....

Also, we haven't yet defined "working class" and probably simply can't in any meaningful, consistenlty useful way. You've said recently, and numerous times, that it's wrong to associate it simply with having money (which I disagree with you on to some extent, money is definitely a factor in defining it for me) but now it's wrong to associate it with education, which is something I SWEAR I've seen you do.

Sure, there are some people who work as janitors and never went to college who are better read than CEOs or whatever, and plenty who are SMARTER, but again, we're talking about accessibility, and that is one issue that I have seen/heard come up (overly intellectual language)

I know it's wrong and annoying for me to assume that a "working class" person has less money than me (and in that case it's probably just false) or less education, or likes fried chicken, or eats meat, or whatever, but I'm a bit at a loss as to how to talk about anything if we can't latch onto a generalization or two to define what we're talking about- at least for the moment.

If I'm missing something and there is some clear, easy to understand distinction between working class and middle class folk that has nothing to do with money or education, please let me know, I'm floundering here!

earthfreak (Pam) said...


I love the website!

earthfreak (Pam) said...

One thing I DID get though, is the point about how there's been talk about how middle class folks are naturally "good at" the part where there isn't a lot of man-made structure or "rules" to quakerism (or seemingly should be), which some working class folks struggle with,

and working class folks are naturally "good at" obedience to leadings (or seemingly should be), which some middle class folks struggle with,

and for some reason, the former is seen as a great asset, and something that makes us inherently "belong" while the latter is basically not recognized at all, let alone valued.

That's about class, not God.

Thanks for helping clarify that

Chris M. said...

Giving in to the will of an authority is something many working class people understand because it's what the system has taught us to do. Why isn't this talked about as a Quaker theological asset, as something working class people have to teach privileged Friends whose entitlement gives them the idea they get to pick and choose what's convenient for their lives?

That's a powerful question. I missed it the first time skimming through all the back-and-forth.

Jesus was a peasant rabbi at the fringes of the most powerful empire on earth at the time... He knew a LOT about that.

Jeanne said...


I don't object to generalizations at all. What I object to are judgments about those generalizations. The UU article I talked about in a previous post makes all sorts of generalizations; but it doesn't say that UU folks need to CHANGE or TEACH the working class and poor folks how to be UU, but instead the author asks how to change their message so that poor and working class people might see themselves in the supposedly "universal" UU message.

As such, that's the problem with Liz's statement. It assumes that one way of doing something is better than another way without any acknowledgment of the gifts to which a poor or working class person might naturally be suited (as I say in my post...working class and poor people are always "deficient" Quakers but never, ever an asset).

Same thing for Jim's statement. Catering your words for a child implies a hierarchical situation. If you simply say "Please don't assume that everyone knows everything you do, especially if you're well educated," then no one is like a "child" (and therefore somehow deficient) but simply different.

I'm pondering a post on a definition so I can point to it in the future. The problem is there isn't a *good* definition out in the academic world, so I'm in very wobbly territory.

earthfreak (Pam) said...

Ah, I think I see what you're saying, Jeanne

I still dont' see it so much in Liz's statement, but you probably have better insight into it than I do (When I read it, I thought it rubbed right against the concept that *we* have to *teach* *them* how to do quakerism, but didn't actually say it, only that *we* tend to talk in ways that take advantage of our college educations (and other background stuff) and *they* might well be lost, if we don't make an effort to broaden how we talk about things.

Which brings me to Jim's statement. I think I glossed over the reference to children. My concern was simply that, to think about what *we* are bringing to the table (rather than just what *they* are) - do we need to use a big, obscure word where a small one will do? No.

I think that's what you were saying, or implying, about what Liz said, that it might be on hyper educated middle class quakers to think about how our way of doing things is getting in the way, rather than focusing on trying to "improve" someone else.

But not because they're children, because they're intelligent adults that have spent their lives developing different (not no) skills and talents, and connection is important, and possible.

earthfreak (Pam) said...

Just curious, what does the tag "booboos" mean?

Like an "owie"

Or like a mess-up?

Jeanne said...

Are booboos owies or mess-ups?

Some of both; I hope my mess-ups get pointed out to me, especially when I cause an owie.

Liz Opp said...

...that's the problem with Liz's statement. It assumes that one way of doing something is better than another way...

What I can agree with is that the problem with my statement, as quoted above, is that it points to an underlying unintended bias within me--something that is hard for me to see myself and something that is hard to point at directly.

It's hard for me to see myself as classist, or to see my classism, in part because intellectually I believe in and affirm the concept that difference (in worldview, in upbringing, in cultural behaviors and values and attitudes) is not better than or worse than. It's just different.

At the same time, I continue to grapple with the implications of my own classism. It's the casual remark--or even one crafted with time and care--that illustrates how much work I have yet to do. My blinders to class are very big...

It's also hard for me to stay in the conversation when it's so very painful and when, like Pam, I feel like I myself don't "get" it. Then again, many of us are learning how hard it's been for working class people to stay at meeting, when they question if they aren't "getting" Quakerism...

Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

Liz Opp said...

I don't know if this is too much of a tangent to be accepted as a comment or not. It's about booboos and owies...

I once was part of a racially diverse workshop about racism and sexism, and one of the ground rules was that as soon as someone felt hurt by a comment that was made or action that was taken, that participant could simply say, "Ouch!" and the conversation or activity would stop.

Then the participant had the opportunity to address what caused the ouch, whether it was an individual's behavior or an indication of systemic oppression/disempowerment. (And yes, those involved in the workshop had a certain level of understanding about oppression/(dis)empowerment.)

In essence, the workshop was more about taking advantage of teachable moments and learning-while-doing in an environment where we knew we were all striving towards the same goal: mutual respect and love for one another, regardless of--or because of!--our differences.

Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

Robin M. said...

On one hand, we're not supposed to use big words or complicated grammar because that might be off-putting to working class people.

On the other hand, we're not supposed to use simple words because that would be demeaning.

I don't get it.

Jeanne said...

Thanks for stopping by Robin.

It's subtle difference I see between being accessible and being patronizing or paternalistic.

Don't dumb things down; make them accessible.

It's a subtle shift in intention that's hard to grasp.

How do we as individuals, as committees, as Meetings, as Yearly Meetings see ourselves in relation to groups and individuals whom we perceive as less cultured, educated, and intelligent?

I see us as a Religious Society and individuals as wanting to help those "less fortunate," both in our choice of professions and philanthropy.

But as the RSoF, we're not class-diverse.

I happen to think one reason is *intention*, which is reflected in our choice of words, which is at times paternalistic.

That means using smaller words when you can, explaining big words when you have to use a big word, AND checking your intention when you do so. Because intention comes across.

When you deliver ministry or make a sign for your Meeting, are your arms open wide or are you looking to speak to only a certain demographic?

Robin M. said...

It has been a part of my process growing up not to be embarrassed to use the words I know how to use. I was made fun of in jr. high for using "big words" and it took years to stop trying to hide. To me, being precise is different from showing off. As you said, it's about intention.

What offends me is the sense that only you are qualified to judge intention. As in you think that the Friends you quote intended to be patronizing. I'm sure you don't know one of them at all.

Julie said...

Keep on being "rude." I've been called that more than once myself, just for being direct and honest. I agree 100%, good post.

The bigger problem is the making of intellectual elitism into an idol. This is rampant in most Q meetings today, and since the [unprogrammed] Q style of intellectualism has a decidedly liberal bent, it attracts (and conversely repels) certain people. In a nutshell, this is a major piece of what makes modern unprogrammed Qism different from early Qism. (No God.)

earthfreak (Pam) said...

I have so much to say on this topic that I'm feeling a little overwhelmed, and concerned that I will tie my own brain up in knots and make no sense whatsoever, but here goes….

1) Robin, I have felt something similar, and think it goes with the territory in dealing with this stuff, which is complex and hard (not intellectually hard even, emotionally hard) – it seems doing one thing is off limits, but doing the opposite is off limits too, until you feel like you can't move, the key is to keep paying attention and try to stay calm, I think…

2) I didn't hear Jeanne say anything that makes me think she thinks she gets to decide what people's intentions are. Actually for the most part, I didn't see her say "don't use big words", but something much more subtle, *pay attention to whether you are communicating*, and, if you need to think about using more accessible words, don't think of it in terms of talking to children (unless you are talking to children, of course) because that's condescending and insulting if you are, in fact, talking to an adult.

3) Robin, again, it sounds like maybe this is mostly about something personal, so me spouting off my ideas may not help at all. I got teased for not talking at all at schools, which is maybe why I like quakers so much, no expectation of talking  But I think it's important to honor everyone. People who feel alienated from Friends by the big words may be feeling something similar, shame in the way they naturally communicate. Instead of focusing on the differences in our ways of communicating, perhaps we could try to be tender to the fact that we all want to be welcomed as who we are, where we are right now.

4) Intention is important, but I'd hardly say it's "all about" intention. Communication is all about communicating, as far as I can tell. If you use big words (or Swedish, for that matter) because it comes naturally to you, you may have no active intention of building a wall between us, but if I can't understand what you say, well, I can't understand what you say.

5) I myself use big words sometimes. Sometimes they're very handy, and, as you point out, more precise. But sometimes they are clearly all about showing off, and sometimes not so clearly, but they are unnecessarily opaque (ie: impossible to see through to the truth behind them). I love the word opaque. But having gone to a pretentious liberal arts college, I got my fill of the big words that get batted about, almost like it's a competition, where the meaning of words is lost and interesting ideas are completely beside the point. There was a point at which I thought if I overheard the word "didactic" in a coffeeshop one more time I might really kill someone, and I'm a religious studies major who still can't retain what the heck "hermeneutics" means for more than five minutes after looking it up in the dictionary (which I've done about 8 times now)

6) Goodnesss knows what's happening to me when sports analogies occur to me, but I'm thinking about communication…….. When you're up at bat, you hit the ball as far as you can, that's all about your ability, and you don't hold back. When you're in a foot race you run as fast as you can, and if you leave the other people in the dust, so much the better. But if you're passing a ball to a teammate in soccer or basketball, the point is not how far you can throw it, it's getting the ball *to* them, the skills involved have more to do with locating them, gauging their speed, if they're ready, etc, and throwing not as fast or as far as you possibly can, but at just the right force so that they will be most likely to be able to catch it. I think it's like that. I'm not asking you to pretend you're not as smart or educated (or strong) as you are, I'm asking you to use another set of skills, with the goal of actually connecting with another person.

7) This is a little bit of a tangent, but I have dear friend at meeting who often doesn't recognize words that get bandied about in our larger group conversations, and I LOVE about her that she ASKS. She'll just jump in and say "I don't know what that means" very politely. (and she's told me it was very hard for her to get over the shame at not knowing to be able to do that, so it's not something I would easily expect from someone) and what I especially love about it is that she's often caught people, including me, using words we're not quite sure of. We may have a sense of it, but when really called on it we stammer, "well, it's kinda like, um, sorta…." Good for the soul!

Bill Samuel said...

It may be a part of middle class WASP culture to be up in the air and too esoteric rather than down to earth like Jesus was. There can be a pathological pattern of avoiding the real points - a pattern that needs to be disrupted.

Judging from what I've seen and heard, when a group actually is inviting and welcoming (I mean to the point where those welcomed actually are as important to the workings as the middle class) to those often who are often looked down upon, the group generally conveys a sense of being more alive than the typical middle class church/meeting or other group. May be messy and full of problems, but alive. Whereas Friends meetings in my experience have often seemed not very alive.

When someone gives a college lecture type of message, or book review, or commentary on what they read in a newspaper or magazine, in meeting, I am usually skeptical that it is the voice of God I am hearing.

Yes, we do need to try to learn to communicate in what in government we call "plain English" rather than speaking in high-falutin' and jargon (like Quakerese) - which, as has been observed, we may not really understand ourselves but use it to show we get it. That's a general thing, not just for meeting for worship. If we learn to stop ourselves from putting on airs and become more down to earth, that will positively affect wht might come out of our mouths on a Sunday morning.

Anonymous said...

I have some thoughts on language, and also on "hearing" what people say.

I'm a middle class, college educated person. When I was in college, I loved to write with academic language. These days I find that I like simpler words much of the time.

I also feel that in using big words we often create separation not only between ourselves and others, but within our own selves. Big words seem to keep a conversation intellectually oriented. The language of my emotions is more straightforward. I think one reason to check ourselves when we start to use a lot of big words is to try to delve deeper into the material.

I also found Jeanne's comments on middle class people's inability to "hear" angry statements really accurate. I can feel this dynamic in myself, and think is a big thing for middle class white folks to work on - we need to learn how to be present with conflict. We often have an extreme discomfort with being close to people that we disagree with. When presented with conflict, middle class white folks tend to either:
1) Declare that conflict is inappropriate, and blame others for creating this uncomfortable situation by using "inappropriate language".
2)Try to determine a set of rules to govern "correct" behavior. People will propose general rules to deal with specific other people. Sometimes they will ask others to outline rules for their own behavior. If no rules can be determined, or people have conflicting opinions, individuals may feel paralyzed. As others have pointed out middle class folks have not been encouraged to take action on "half-baked" ideas. In myself there is a clear feeling that this is dangerous, in that people will accuse you of not having enough information, etc. You can be reprimanded for taking action without a clear sense of what you are doing.
3) If a person feels that they are to blame they may feel horribly guilty or inadequate. Some people try to avoid the issue, just to stay away from the guilt. More and more, I'm coming to believe that guilt is one of the most significant barriers to white middle class people dealing with racism and classism.

I'm sure there are more things that people do, but these are the ones I've identified so far. These patterns make it hard to really be present with each other, and to hear each other. I see them a lot in conversations about race and class, but they also operate in a other ways.


Robin M. said...

I should be more specific. Is it possible that when Jim asked, "would a teenager understand you?" that he actually meant people aged 13-18 in meeting for worship, and not a dig at working class adults?

Jeanne, I am torn between wanting to participate because I think these are important topics and my inability to participate without taking it all personally and fighting about it. A sign of my internal class conflict, I think, and perhaps not so helpful to you or this blog.

Jeanne said...


Thanks for sticking around, even though this is hard for you.

I think if the initial question were about children (and he uses the word "child" in his answer, as well as "teenager"), I could see your point. But the initial question was about whether there was something inherent in Quaker theology that made Quakerism unavailable and unattractive to working class and poor people.

I don't think Jim was making a "dig" at working class or poor people. I know Jim was trying to be helpful in this discussion. But lots of people who want to be helpful end up being hurtful.

The initial questions hurt me deeply by making me feel like my experience was invalid. Then the answers dug deeper, even though some of them were trying to be helpful.

It's hard to hear people who want to be helpful when what they're saying hurts.

And I did my damned best to point out these things, which aren't conscious among middle and owning-class Friends corporately or individually.

I don't know what to say about your participation in the discussion. I'm sorry that I can't seem to say things in a way you can hear what I'm saying.

One time, when I was having a hard time hearing what you were saying, I asked for a phone call, and it helped me Perhaps that would help you?

Liz Opp said...

In an earlier comment, Robin writes, in part:

I am torn between wanting to participate because I think these are important topics and my inability to participate without taking it all personally and fighting about it. A sign of my internal class conflict, I think...

This Friend speaks my mind!

Because of my own inward struggle of how to or whether to participate, I've finally written a post about wrestling with my own classism. Sometimes articulating my own struggle helps me understand what I'm going through.

Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

natcase said...

You know, from my standpoint Jim's comment makes perfect sense. I think trying to phrase things for children is a great idea. Not baby talk (I never use baby talk with my five-year-old), but clear explanations that don't include any words that themselves require culture-based explanations. To me, that exercise actually makes ideas/messages that much clearer. The other reason it works is that you don't know who in the audience is going to have his background or that background. By trying simultaneously to be true to the message and to see it with as few cultural references as possible, you get closer to a true message.

The point I'm trying to make here (and I think it echoes what others have said here) is that learning to speak clearly enough that children can "get it" is a great gift, and in no way demeans the listener. Or if it does, the listener would do well to get his/her self-identity up and out of the dictionary.

Heather said...

"How do we as individuals, as committees, as Meetings, as Yearly Meetings see ourselves in relation to groups and individuals whom we perceive as less cultured, educated, and intelligent?"

Um, maybe things have changed since my childhood, but I specifically remember being taught not to see anyone as "less" cultured, educated or intelligent -- instead to recognize that people are raised differently, and that different does not mean less.

As to why there's a disconnect between Quakerism, a religion that champions (to some extent) the poor and the actual poors?

That's easy. One primary methods of outreach is education. Look at Quaker schools compared to say, Catholic. Which one serves its community? Which one is affordable?

I came across your site because I was leaning towards going back to meeting. But I suspect the hand-wringing that annoyed me so much as a child would annoy me even worse as an adult.

Jeanne said...


Thanks for stopping by. I agree with you about Quaker education. I'm in fact writing a post right now about Quaker education.

Please don't take my blog all by itself as a representation of Quakers all over. I am one voice among many, and one person alone doesn't have the entire truth. I'd still suggest you check out your local Meeting, which you can find at

You're welcome to contact me directly if you have any questions. I'm at or you can call 612-605-9703. I've been meaning to put up a "call me" button on my blog but haven't gotten around to it!

:-) Jeanne