Category Archives: Society

Society

#ChangingPathsChallenge2024: Colours

Leave a comment

Note: I kept the British spelling of colors in the title because that’s how how Yvonne Aburrow spelled it in the list of prompts. For the rest of this post, I will be a good little rebellious U.S. citizen and spell it properly. 😝

This past Sunday, it was Pride week at Gracepointe Church in Nashville, whose services I attend online. During the children’s moment (what other churches might call a “children’s sermon”), Tiffany spoke with the children about pride and the rainbow and started asking what aspects or traits of God each color and the rainbow might represent. It led to a few funny moments, as many of the children had watched Inside Out and their answers reflected that. So they started suggesting emotions like anxiety and jealousy. Part of me is tempted to launch into an exploration of a theology that acknowledged a Divine being that encompassed such traits.

Instead, I want to focus on this as just one more example of how important color is to those of (or at least those of us who can see colors) and how common it is to associate our colors with various things, such as concepts, emotions, and energies. Many of these systems don’t always agree with one another, but they all exist. And I think many of them are useful, even those that are not consistent with one another.

At a more basic level, I think the important thing to take away from how we view colors and associations with these various things is how complicated and nuanced the world we find ourselves in. We do not live in a monochromatic world where things can be reduced to simple dualities and dichotomies.

And just like a rainbow, that “many-hued” world is beautiful.

(This post is part of #ChangingPathsChallenge2024. For more information about the challenge and a list of topics, please see Yvonne Aburrow’s post about it.

Image from PublicDomainPictures.net
Religion, Society, Spiritual Development

#changingpathschallenge2024: Reconnecting

Leave a comment

Most days, it feels like our modern society is designed to disconnect us from everything.

  • It disconnects us from other people.
  • It disconnects us from our heritage.
  • It disconnects us from our own bodies.
  • It disconnects us from our emotions.
  • It disconnects us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Is it any wonder we often feel lonely and isolated? We desperately need to get reconnected to these things. For me, my spirituality plays a significant role in that reconnecting process. I often say that my religion is a celebration of life, and reconnecting ourselves to these various things we’ve allowed ourselves to become unplugged from is a part of that celebration. It’s also an important part of maintaining and enhancing that life.

  • Reconnecting to other people and forming a community provides us with support.
  • Reconnecting to our heritage (in as much as is possible) allows us to better understand who we are and how we’ve become that person.
  • Reconnecting to our bodies enables us to live fuller lives rather than feeling like brains trapped in a meat suit.
  • Reconnecting to our emotions allows us to feel fully human again rather than unfeeling automatons.
  • Reconnecting to other living things helps us understand our place in the world over all and is an important step in connecting with the numinous.

That’s a lot of reconnecting to do. And I think the process of reconnecting to everything is a lifetime process. Maybe even a process that spans several lifetimes. But I also think doing so is well worth it.

(This blog post is part of the #changingpathschallenge2024. Be sure to read Yvonne Aburrow’s post to learn more details about the challenge.)

Politics, Religion, Society, Spiritual Development

#changingpathschallenge2024: Peace

Leave a comment

True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.

Source: Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story

Dr. King was a brilliant man and downright prophetic. He had quite a few things to say about peace and justice, though the above quote is probably my favorite commentary that he offered on the subject.1

I hope that Dr. King and those who most directly benefited from his legacy can forgive me for using his quote as a starting point for my post. I will try my best to make sure that my own thoughts. if not worthy of following his words, at least do them no disservice or injustice.

With this quote and elsewhere, King wisely notes that a peace that is not rooted in justice — and an all-inclusive justice that applies to all — cannot last. In effect, true and lasting peace is the result of justice. So if we want peace, we must seek justice.

And yet, I might suggest that some semblance of peace is necessary for the pursuit of justice. Not a false peace, but some small island of inner peace that provides us a firm foundation from which to plan and work. I’m reminded of the the 1997 movie Wishmaster,2 In that movie, Tammy Lauren’s character talks to the basketball team she’s coaching about stillness, and speaks of an inner stillness that will help them to makes baskets if they can find it in the moment before attempting to score. This advice returns to help Lauren’s character in the climactic moment as she calms her mind in order to find the perfect wish that undoes all the harm caused by the djinn she accidentally released and traps the creature once again.

I also think that both peace and justice are not necessarily static states but involve and require an ongoing process. It is something that we will always need to strive toward as circumstances and needs arise and our own understanding of these things change. So let us continue to strive for both justice and peace, building on whatever islands of peace we and those before us have already established.

(This post is part of the #changingpathschallenge2024. See Yvonne Aburrow’s post about the challenge for more details.)

Footnotes

  1. I will note that I’m more familiar with this sentiment as Dr. King expressed it in his Letter from a BIrmingham Jail, which I’ve taken to reading every MLK Day as part of my personal process of self-examination. In that letter, he criticized white moderates, rightly accusing them of preferring “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” ↩︎
  2. Back in college and when I was still a Christian, I was plannings to become a minister. I think this post and others like it demonstrate that had I continued down that path, i would have been one of those ministers who liberally peppered my sermons with pop culture references and sermon illustrations. ↩︎
Politics, Society

Memorial Day Musings

Leave a comment

Happy Monday and good Memorial Day (at least here in the United States), dear readers! Given the holiday here in the U.S., I thought it would be nice to take a break (more or less) from the witchcraft and Paganism talk and share a few thoughts on Memorial Day.

I grew up in a small rural town and as part of a church (affiliated with the American Baptist Association) that considered Memorial Day very important. I was a member of my high school band, and each Memorial Day we marched in two different parades and attended the service at the end of each of those parades. One year when I was a teenager, my Sunday school decided to hold its own Memorial Day service at a nearby park and I memorized Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address during that service. So I grew up with the idea that remembering an honoring the sacrifices made by many soldiers1 and appreciating what those sacrifices did for us. I still consider that important.

And yet, as I’ve grown older, I’ve also seen how the military and the sacrifice of soldiers have become fetishized2 and weaponized to glorify war and push for more wars. In many ways, I feel that powerful elements in our country have gone to great lengths to idolize fallen soldiers — which effectively dehumanizes them — to push their own agendas. “How can you question our military policy? You’re disrespecting fallen soldiers everywhere!” To which I say, “hogwash.”

In reality, I think we owe it to our fallen soldiers — and those still living, for that matter — to look at what we’ve asked them3 to lay down their lives for. Was their justification for a truly just cause? Was it absolutely necessary?4 If we do not honestly grapple with these questions, it seems to me that we are needlessly throwing these soldiers’ lives away rather than asking them to make a noble sacrifice. To me, that’s what seems most disrespectful.

I, like others before me, suspect that much of this has been enabled by the fact that the horror of war is something we’ve become more or less insulated from. And if you, dear readers, will forgive a pop culture reference,5 this reminds me of the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon,” which was first broadcast in 1967. In that episode, the crew of the Enterprise encounters a world where wars are almost completely simulated by computer. The only “real” part of the war is that after each “attack,” the computer spits out a list of names of people who are then supposed to report to be euthanized. Members of the Enterprise crew are on planet during one of these simulated attacks and are designated as “casualties” to be euthanized. The show’s climax comes when the Enterprise crew destroys the computers that perform the simulations, forcing the planet to wage war the “old fashioned way” and grappling with the real horrors that come with war.6

I sometimes think that we in the 21st century of the real world need to take a cue from Captain Kirk and find a way to re-acquaint ourselves with the horrors of war. Because for many people in the United States, I think it’s way too abstract and unreal. Perhaps then, we might think twice about asking our soldiers to risk their own lives in certain situations. Again, I feel that we owe this to our soldiers — both living and dead — if we are truly going to honor their memories and their sacrifices.

Footnotes

  1. It’s important to note that I’m using “soldiers” here to refer to all military personnel and includes sailors, pilots, and those who fill the numerous roles in our military these days rather than just those who literally carry a rifle or other weapon onto the battlefield. ↩︎
  2. And just to prevent this post from being completely devoid of Pagan content, I’ll note that I have similar misgivings about many “Viking warriors” in the modern Heathen movement who seem to be fetishizing Viking warriors of the past while ignoring the rest of ancient Norse culture(s). ↩︎
  3. Or commanded them! ↩︎
  4. I’m often reminded of a certain quote from Foundation by Isaac Asimov, which I read back when I was in high school. In that book, one of Asimov’s characters would occasionally note that “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” I remember thinking of that quote when our nation’s leaders started rattling their sabers shortly after September 11, 2001 and noting sadly that they seemed to be choosing violence as our first (and go-to) course of action instead. ↩︎
  5. Well, another one if you’re reading these footnotes as you read the main body of the post. ↩︎
  6. Seriously, this episode from 1967 is just another example of how those who complain that recent Star Trek shows have “gone woke” don’t know what they’re talking about. The entire franchise has a long history of being “woke.” At least from time to time. ↩︎
Gender and Sexuality, Sexuality, Society

Musings on the Undeserving Bad Rap Lust Gets

2 Comments

Recently, one of the Facebook groups I belong to has been having a discussion about the relationship between religion and homosexuality.  The person who started the discussion, a gay man, expressed his struggles with the fact that his own faith teaches very negative views of same-sex relationships and gay people in general. He wanted to know how others dealt with that struggle.

In the myriad of wonderful answers he received, one person pointed out that one of the reason certain religions see homosexuality as bad is because they assume it’s just all about lust. It’s an astute observation and one I’ve made elsewhere myself. Same-sex relationships often involve much more than just hopping in bed and slating our sexual needs and desires. There’s other forms of intimacy and mutual support that many of us find with our partners, and it’s insulting and harmful to erase that.

But at some point, we also need to acknowledge and defend the fact that lust itself ain’t so bad either. In fact it’s a natural and good thing.

As I gathered my thoughts to write this post, I decided to look online for a definition of the word lust. It seemed to me that the definitions were split almost evenly between defining lust as merely (possibly strong or intense) desire (often for sex) and defining lust as going beyond simple desire into the “excessive,” “overmastering,” and even “lecherous” or “illicit.”

What’s interesting to me is the one definition — which clearly falls into the first camp — is marked as “obsolete.”  I find that interesting when I look at the blurb about the origins of the word:

before 900; Middle English luste, Old English lust; cognate with Dutch, German lust pleasure, desire; akin to Old Norse lyst desire; see list4

Note that none of the earlier cognates mentions excessiveness, loss of control, or lechery. These two things together make it clear that the idea of lust being excessive or negative in some way was an association people made later.

The thing is, I get the impression a lot of people still use “lust” to really refer to all sexual desire while simultaneously holding onto that added negative connotation. As if there’s no such thing as good sexual desire.

Now, I can already hear people objecting to that in my mind. They’ll say that of course they believe there’s such a good thing as sexual desire. They’re not prudes, after all. They even have examples of what they consider good sexual desire.  Chances are, those examples involved married couples and/or other long-term relationships.  The message there? Sure sexual desire is good, but only when redeemed or moderated by romantic love.

I don’t buy that at all. I think it’s possible for some people to explore their feelings of sexual desire with other people in a healthy and responsible way without romantic love or a long-term relationship involved. It just takes mutual respect and a commitment to make sure that everyone involved has a positive, fulfilling experience.  That requires neither a romantic attachment nor a long term commitment.

I’m not sure we can ever reclaim the word “lust” as a positive thing. I’m not sure we should even try. However, I do think that we need to think about what we’re communicating — even subtly or unconsciously — to others and ourselves when we start talking about “lust.” Are we really just talking about the abusive and exploitative ways in which some people might satisfy their own desires? Or are we vilifying sexual desires in general and healthy ways others explore those desires that we don’t approve of?

I also have a book recommendation that I feel both covers this topic and related ones in an intelligent and insightful way. And in far more depth and detail than I managed here.

Around The Blogosphere, Gender and Sexuality, Society

Let’s talk about how “Good Men” should be responding.

Leave a comment

[Content Note: Sexual harassment and sexual assault.]

I’ve been a constant reader of Shakesville for some time.  I’ve come to learn a lot from Melissa and the other members of the community she has built up there.  I’ve also been following her recent posts about the numerous revelations about male celebrities sexually harassing and even sexually assaulting the people — mostly women — that they work with (or who work for them) as well as Matt Damon’s troubling and inexcusable comments about the whole things.  There’s something from a Damon quote she included in today’s post that I wanted to comment on.  Here’s the quote:

We’re in this watershed moment, and it’s great, but I think one thing that’s not being talked about is there are a whole shitload of guys — the preponderance of men I’ve worked with — who don’t do this kind of thing and whose lives aren’t going to be affected.

First, I will note that Melissa is right.  There’s absolutely no need to talk about the men who manage the most basic human dignity required to not sexually harass or sexually assault women or anyone else. This is basic human decency that is and should just be expected. Meeting it requires no comment, let alone praise.

Second, my face is completely squinched up over the idea that none of this affects men who don’t sexually harass or sexually harass women or anyone else. I don’t buy that at all. Sure, we are in no danger – contrary to alarmed rape apologists everywhere – of losing our jobs over some big misunderstanding. Nor are we impacted as directly or intensely as the victims of these predators. But for me to say I’m not affected at all would require me to not care that women and other people are actively being victimized.

So yeah, for Damon to say that men who aren’t sexual predators are not affected by this screams a monumental lack of empathy and compassion for those predators’ in my book. And I find that unthinkable.

We “good men” — as Damon might call us — need to do better than just not engage in sexual harassment or sexual harassment ourselves.  We need to be concerned about the women and other people hurt by those who harass and assault them.  We need to listen to those women, believe them, and support them.

We also need to be mindful of and fight back against the culture that lets other men harass and assault women. We need to fight back against the idea that men are ever entitled to women’s bodies, affections, attention, smiles, time, or anything else. Even when those ideas come from our own subconscious minds. We need to learn and respect women’s boundaries and call out guys when they’re violating a woman’s boundaries, no matter how small that boundary seems to us.

We should quit saying “I don’t do that,” and start asking, “How can we better respect women and their boundaries and fight against those who don’t.”

 

Religion, Sexuality, Society

Open letter Christian webcomic artist Adam Ford

5 Comments

[Content Note: Homophobia, transphobia, mentions of anti-gay and anti-trans violence, mentions of suicide]

My niece posted a link to this webcomic earlier today. I decided the webcomic artist deserved a response.

Dear random Christian dude who wants to reassure me he doesn’t hate me by writing a lengthy and completely impersonal webcomic,

Look, I get it. Your uncomfortable with the fact that many LGBT people think of socially conservative Christians as hateful. The thing you need to understand is that A LOT of your fellow Christians do indeed act terribly hateful. Some of them may even be people that you and your church support and revere.

Plus, the other thing you need to understand is that you don’t have to be screaming obscenities or anything equally obvious to act in ways that are hurtful and even come across as hateful. So let me do you a favor and go through your webcomic and point a few things out to you that you get terribly wrong.

I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God, any homosexual practice is sinful, and marriage will only ever be the life-long union between one man and one woman.

But I promise you, I don’t hate you.

You know, it’s hard to believe you don’t hate me — or at least that you have my best interests in mind — when your first volley in your “reassurance” is to state unequivocally that you will never consider any emotionally and sexually intimate relationship that I might build with someone to be anything other than irredeemably sinful and illegitimate. I mean, you could have started demonstrating your commitment to loving LGBT people by talking about what you are trying to get the church to do about the fact that many states still allow employers to fire  people simply for being LGBT. Or you could have talked about what you’re trying to get the church to do about anti-LGBT violence — especially violence against transgender people who are most often targeted. Or you could have talked about what you want to do about the problem of increased instances of homelessness and suicide rates among LGBT youth.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are a lot of very real problems that LGBT people face, and you could be doing something right now to help alleviate and address those problems. But instead, you decided to start by drawing your line in the sand. Or let’s call it what it really is, your chosen battle line. Try and understand just how false that makes the rest of your claims sound.

The world sets us up as polar opposites, though. It says we’re bitter enemies in a “culture war,” lobbing Molotov cocktails at each other on the front lawn of the White House.

Do you know who actually uses the phrase “culture war” regularly, and insists they’re fighting one. Many of your fellow Christians. People at the AFA. People at the FRC. People at Focus on the Family. Pat Robertson. These are extremely visible and powerful Christians. They’re the ones pushing the “culture war” framing. And that’s when they’re not comparing LGBT people to sexual predators, calling us mentally ill, or saying God sent AIDS to punish us. There are a lot of other terrible things they say, too. I encourage you to do some research.

So my question to you is what are you doing to real in your fellow Christians who are pushing this “culture war” frame? Are you pushing back and telling them to shut up? Are you making sure that neither you nor your church supports the Christian organizations that are actually promoting and acting as aggressors in the culture war? Or are you just remaining silent and hoping that I and every of LGBT person will magically know you don’t agree with them and “aren’t like those Christians” (or believe it just because you say so)?

If you are gay, your fallen heart tells you to lust after people of the same sex.

God calls that sin.

My fallen heart tells me to lust after people of the opposite sex who are not my wife.

God calls that sin.

Did you notice the major difference between those two statements. You see, according to you, God offers you a context in which you’re allowed to embrace and explore your sexual desires. But according to you, God offers LGBT people no such context. Any such exploration we may consider is sinful. Full stop. End of story. Try to understand how cruel that makes your vision of God in my eyes.

Also, stop to consider how you’ve just implicitly reduced all same-sex relationships to nothing more than sexual gratification. You’ve completely ignored and invalidated the fact that many same sex relationships also involve deep emotional intimacy, mutual care, nurturing, and many other qualities that I’m sure you value in your own marriage. Again, when you start trying to caricature our relationships to fit your “sin” narrative, it’s rather difficult to accept that you’re as hate-free as you claim.

The liberal “churches” which are now saying, “Oh hey! God changed his mind and is totes cool with the gay stuff now 4 real!” do not really love you. They want your approval.

Sounds to me like you need to write a follow-up comic to let liberal churches know you don’t hate them, too. Though I’m not sure they’ll believe you any more than I believe you. But on a more serious note, I think it’s entirely condescending of you to claim you know the hearts and motives of others. Also, I’ll note that many of those liberal churches have actively backed their claims of love by actively doing things to address all of those serious issues facing LGBT people that I mentioned earlier. You haven’t done that yet. I trust you’re familiar with he phrase “action speaks louder than words.”

Not because I say so; because God says so. (See: entire Bible)

There’s a problem with that claim — and it’s really relevant to your rather disparaging comments that liberal churches say God “changed his mind” by the way. People have been saying “God says so/the Bible says so” for centuries, only to later decide that maybe the Bible doesn’t actually say that after all. I mean, there was once a time when many Christians insisted that the Bible said that it was okay to own slaves. In fact, at least one denomination (hint: it’s the largest and most well-known Baptist denomination in the United States of America) was founded on the principle that the Bible clearly states that slave-owners are allowed to own slaves. I don’t know any Christian who would insist that the Bible says that anymore. I doubt that you or any of your fellow Christians today would phrase that change in belief or interpretation of the Bible as “Oh hey! God changed his mind!”

Truth of the matter is, the Bible is hugely open to interpretation and always has been. There have been huge arguments over what the Bible allegedly says, and people on both sides of many of those arguments have insisted that the Bible “clearly says” whatever position they happen to hold. So please, accept that liberal Christians might actually legitimately come to a different interpretation of the Bible, lest you fall into the hubris of thinking you are the authority of what the Bible says. Trust me, history is rife of examples of why that may not end so well for you.

Repent and believe that gospel.

The word “gospel” means “good news.” I ask you, what “good news” are you offering to LGBT people. Quite frankly, I don’t find “you have to live your entire life without any sort of sexual or emotional fulfillment or intimate companionship” to be all that good of news. Can you do it? Why not? After all, the Bible also makes it clear that it would be better for you to remain unmarried. And yet, you mentioned having a wife. Why are you trying to place burdens on other people that you have not accepted for yourself?

We love you, so we must tell you the truth.

Okay. You’ve told me. You’re at least the 100th person to tell me this. (Seriously, do you really think LGBT people have never heard all of this before? You might want to check your facts.) I’m telling you, I don’t buy it and it stinks like yesterdays garbage after it’s sat in the sun all afternoon.

But while we’re on the topic of how much you allegedly love me, let me ask you something: What good is love without relationship. You don’t know me. You haven’t taken a single moment to get to know me. You haven’t listened to my story or shared in my joys or my woes. To be frank, all you’ve done is preach at me, possibly hoping that the cutesie webcomic format will make it more tolerable. If your love is that impersonal and impersonal, then I think I’ll still with the “vote seekers” and “approval seekers.” Once again, at least they seem to understand some of the real and serious problems I and many like me face and are actively trying to do something. They’ve shown real, tangible acts of love.

So thanks, random dude who knows nothing about me and likely will do absolutely nothing to change that. I hope that your webcomic gave you that sense of “being loving” you were trying to create for yourself. It did absolutely nothing for me.

Best wishes,

Jarred.

A gay man who just doesn’t quite believe you.

Moderation Note: This is a no proselytizing thread. Comments trying to convince me that I need to “repent” will be deleted. Commenters that repeatedly ignore this rule will be banned. But don’t worry, there’s no need for you to tell me the truth. Adam Ford has already taken care of it. You can even see the proof for yourself.

 

Religion, Society, Witchcraft

Pat Robertson’s world is a scary place

Leave a comment

Tuesday, Right Wing Watch reported that Pat Robertson warned pregnant women against putting pictures of their ultrasounds on Facebook.  His reasoning, according to the report, is rather interesting:

“I don’t think there is any harm in it,” he said. “But I tell you, there are demons and there are evil people in the world, and you post a picture like that and some cultist gets hold of it or a coven and they begin muttering curses against an unborn child. You never know what somebody’s going to do.”

This is yet another glimpse into the dark, horrible world that Pat Robertson believes he’s living in. He believes that there are “Satanic witches” who have nothing better to do than scour the Facebook to find random ultrasound pictures from people they don’t know and curse them. In Pat Robertson’s fantasy world, people unlike him run around looking to commit evil for evil’s sake. It leaves one wondering if he also imagines us laughing maniacally and twirling over-waxed mustaches or cackling around cauldrons1.

The thing is, most witches don’t work curses at all. Those who do are really unlikely to curse random strangers for a number of reasons2. If a witch is actually going to work that kind of magic, said witch is going to work it against someone they have a personal investment in hurting.

So why on earth does Pat Robertson imagine evil figures doing all kinds of evil that makes no sense? Does he enjoy the way that it ties his followers to him with fear and terror? Is his desire to paint himself and those like him as the soul heroes of the world so great that he needs to paint everyone else in the world as evil as he can?

Or is he actually trapped in his own fear? Has he warning about evils for so long that he actually sees and fears them wherever he looks? If so, I have to say, that’s a horrible way to live.

1Okay, I’ll confess. The cackling around cauldrons thing actually happens. I mean, every now and then you’re in the middle of a solemn ritual and someone flubs a chant or sends one of the ritual tools skittering across the room due to clumsiness. That’s bound to crack up anyone with a sense of humor.

2The two major reasons are “trying to curse someone you don’t have a connection to is nearly impossible” and “no one in their right mind is going to work with and connect themselves to the kinds of energies a curse entails unless there’s a deeply personal reason to do so.”

 

Gender and Sexuality, Society

Spam for Entitled Heterosexual Men

2 Comments

[Content Note: Rape Culture, Misogyny, Male Entitlement, Sexually Explicit Language]

On a lark, I went through my email’s trash folder the other day. For Saturday (Valentine’s Day) alone, I found four pieces of spam with a common theme: Get the woman (or women) of your dreams. See them for yourself (separated by lines of asterisks):

This shocking video is going to blow your mind and let you discover:

-Magic innocent phrases to make her horny in seconds;

-Simple questions to make any pussy wet;

-Couple of gestures to instantly take her down!

And much more for a full makeover of your life.

No practice, no efforts, no hard work!

***********

Tired of being in a friend zone and constantly feeling unable to put her to your bed? Your life needs a makeover!

It’s the very lucky day when you may learn the genius way to make any girl want you without any efforts!

Tested on thousands of them! And they still want more…

***********

I hardly believe it myself but I’ve tried more than 20 sex positions last week with 5 different girls.

This technique is a huge sex cake that has changed my life the way I had never even dreamt of.

You may carry on being just a jerk for hot babes or watch this video and let the science do the best for you!

Good luck!

***********

You know I feel like a love boner king lately!
And it seems I almost forgot how I pleased myself with a night porn and relationship with a girl I didn’t like very much…

Today the situation is 100% different.
I can swear this technique is the most useful finding for an average man like me.

If you want to take the lead and be the one to choose, not be chosen by them, this great video is a must-see for you!

There’s a lot of wrong that I could cover in this. I doubt I’ll manage to spot everything, but I want to list some of the assumptions that these messages continue to support and encourage men to hold:

Women are there for their needs, especially their sexual needs.

The way to get any woman they want is simply to say or do the right things.

Women’s sexuality and sexuality exists solely to aid the men in getting the sex they want.

Getting the woman they want can and should be effortless.

There is nothing worse than having a woman decide a man is good enough to be a friend, but not good enough to be a sexual partner.*

What a woman wants and who she wants it with doesn’t matter.

These are just four examples of this kind of mentality that landed in my email on one day out of the year.  These same messages are pushed explicitly by books an websites every day. They are pushed implicitly in other forms of media. (Think of all the “hero gets the girl” themes in just about every genre of movie.)

It’s these kinds of messages that deny the humanity and agency of women. It’s these kinds of messages that encourage and enable men to think that they deserve the attentions and sexual favors of women — and not just any women, but the specific women they want — sometimes to the extreme point that they react like Elliot Rodger or Ben Moynihan (just to pick two examples).

These messages are toxic and they need to stop. They need to be challenged and discussed. They cannot be ignored. They cannot be shrugged off as something “no one really believes or listens too” because the evidence to the contrary is stark.

Further Reading: A Culture of Violent Entitlement, and the Culture of Silence Surrounding It via Shakesville

Note: I am indebted to Melissa McEwan at Shakesville, whose extensive blogging about men like Rodgers and Moynihan provided me with the links to news articles about them.

Gender and Sexuality, Movies, Religion, Society

Movie Review: Impossible Choice

2 Comments

[Content Note: Homophobia]

Last night, as I scoured both Netflix And Amazon Instant Video for gay-themed movies to watch, I came across Impossible Choice, an extremely-low budget film that came out in 2012. The brief description on Amazon caught my eye:

For the minister’s son, Brandon, this is a summer of awakening and acceptance of his homosexuality. For his father, this is a challenge to his roots in the bible.

In many ways, that description reminded me of the movie Rock Haven, which I love (and still wish I could find my copy of). I decided to watch it.

After watching it, I skimmed through the customer reviews on Amazon. This is a movie where it seemed like either reviewers loved it or hated it. In many ways, I agree with the negative reviews, as they all brought up great points. This was an extremely low-budget film. The writing was awful. The story — actually at least two different plots that were only related by the fact that they happened at the same time and in the same place — jumped all over the place. And there were several questions the story left unanswered. (Like whatever happened to the criminal charges that were brought against Lance? You get the sense that they were trumped up, but it’s never shown that the police learn this fact.) Or there was the sudden shift of Captain Dan from being totally opposed to the idea of running a gay cruise (in the first scene or two, he throws around the word “fag” quite liberally) to being entirely in favor of it and defending the idea in front of the people of Palmyra. In fact, I had to go back and verify that the virulent homophobe I remembered from the first few scenes really was Captain Dan, because they seemed like completely different characters.

The best part of the movie — as many of the negative critics noted — was the ten minute “play within,” a play created by some of the movie characters for a college drama class. In the “play within,” Matthew Shepard and Tyler Clementi meet up in the afterlife and tell each other about the events leading up their eventual deaths. It was well acted, moving, and possibly the only truly memorable part of the entire movie. It also really didn’t seem to have any bearing on the rest of the movie, which made it odd in context.

I will admit that despite all its technical flaws, I do have some warm feelings toward this movie. This is partly because its setting is local to me, as the gay cruise that serves as subject matter of one of the plotlines and the setting for the climax of the other takes place on the Erie Canal and starts from the nearby town of Palmyra New York. There’s something about seeing shots of local geography — and having it recognized in the film as such — that’s just touching to me.

Also, the themes of the movie, while poorly executed, are near and dear to my heart. Granted, in many ways, that makes the poor execution of the movie all the more sad. In the long run, I think it would have been better if those who made it would have focused either on the work to get the gay cruise approved or on the story about Brandon’s relationships with his father and his love interest, Lance.

Would I recommend watching it? If you have a couple hours to spare and access to Amazon Prime, sure. Especially if you live in or around Monroe County New York. Especially if you’re also gay.

But if you have access to a movie like Latter Days or Rock Haven (and haven’t already watched it to death), you may want to check one of them out instead.