Patriarchy in pop culture?

I find myself in shock of the existing remnants of patriarchy in our U.S. society. Ask anyone, we are no longer a patriarchy. More women go to college and more women earn advanced/professional degrees than men in the U.S. today. But women still make less money than men and face unwarranted biases in multiple aspects of life. I see every day double standards for men and women attempting to perform the same roles. One particularly extreme example comes to mind: depictions of sexuality. For softcore pornography and movie sex scenes…why is it acceptable and common to display any and every inch of a female body, but extremely rare for male genitals to be depicted? The last movie I can remember seeing a full-blown male figure in (aside from the CGI Dr. Manhattan) is Schindler’s List. Yes, that’s right, Schindler’s List. And it most certainly wasn’t a steamy love scene, it was depicting a historical event as accurately as possible, and nudity in this case was meant to evoke and emotional response in the viewer. I’ve seen plenty of movies that flaunt multiple female figures…and I’m left dumbfounded on this question. We’re left, movie after movie, without coming even close to equal exposure times or levels. I have no problem with displaying genitalia in films; I just don’t understand why it’s so consistently one-sided. Do filmmakers have some idea that women might grow faint at the sight of a penis? For instance, the movie Knocked Up delivers plenty of images of boobs, and even delivers two (somewhat more shocking) of a vagina in mid-birth, but fails in the penis department. This film will provide a good segue to another example; this film’s big star is the overweight-pothead Seth Rogen, (before he lost 50 lbs (or something like that)), hooking up with supercareerwoman Katherine Heigl (close enough to Barbie in looks). Again, I have no problem with the plot, but the same would never be in a film with a role reversal, and if it were, it would never be as well-received by moviegoers in general. Senseless double standards carried over to pop culture speak to the current state of remaining patriarchy, but also misogyny. It’s utterly depressing to see gender portrayals perpetuate outdated stereotypes, and to see those stereotypes manifest in real people’s lives; after all, art mimics life, and vice-versa.

An open letter on criticizing religious beliefs

The background of this bit is that I’ve been emailing with a relative about philosophical ideas. Religious/spiritual beliefs came up in an indirect way, and I was thanked for not delving into religious criticism. The part of the return email where I address this issue is below; it ended up being a general statement which really applies to everyone [“you” applies to you, the reader]:

“First, let me establish that I don’t care either way what you believe about “God”. What you have described as a point of view is something very similar to my own ideas up until relatively recently, in fact [No Abrahamic God exists, but there must be a “higher power” which is the origin of the universe]. I only want to dissect one specific idea I’ve heard others express time and time again—that I should not be critical of another’s belief system. This is something I do struggle with, not just with you but almost everyone outside the ‘atheist’ circle. It is the notion that religious/spiritual beliefs are somehow ‘above’ criticism or critical evaluation. That we shouldn’t touch it or talk about it as a society or as individuals. Yes, we split paths on the existence of god, but it doesn’t bother me nearly as much as this attempt to suppress the expression of ideas. This argument tends to go hand-in-hand with the misguided idea that criticism of a belief system is synonymous with criticism of the believer. You should know that I cannot promise that I will never talk about this issue or speak critically of religious ideas; but when I do so, it is not personal. I can logically describe why a religious dogma is sending a negative message to a follower or make a joke about religious belief, but that does not imply that I think the follower is doing something wrong or bad in practicing the religion. Like I have already said, I have dealt with these issues multiple times before, even though I could only describe myself as an atheist reaching back maybe 2 years or so. I have experienced a good deal of strife within my own family on this issue. Extended family members have personally attacked me and disowned me for this perspective. I’ve often thought about going back into the proverbial closet about my beliefs (and obviously I keep this a secret from many people), but I do not think I can stomach the subsequent feeling of being put into a cage like a damn animal. I make a point not to express my ideas around family, but some have come into contact with them regardless via my facebook page and/or blog(s). I’ve had a negative experience with ‘coming out’, but I hope telling you won’t result the same way. To be frank, I have no interest anymore in those who would condemn my life and character for my ideas about religion.”

In a time where atheists face more discrimination in the U.S. than Muslims, Jews, and multiple ethnic minorities (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1), I think people are taking the wrong approach. I would dare to challenge the widespread perceptions about this group of people. In truth, our ideas are very transparent, and in my experience, we are very open, aside from some fears of being misjudged and miscategorized. But we still have work to do when it comes to society’s willingness to have a free exchange of ideas, and an atheist’s right to freedom of expression without fear of persecution.

In response to *this* thoughtless piece of garbage…

“Joyfully celebrating the killing of a killer who joyfully celebrated killing carries an irony that I hope will not be lost on us. Are we learning anything, or simply spinning harder in the cycle of violence?” -Brian McLaren on the death of Osama bin Laden

It is not ‘wrong’ to celebrate the death of a person committed to practicing evil wherever and however possible. That death is ideologically significant, and that significance reaches beyond national borders and into moral borders. I don’t care which side you’re on; when your house is being attacked, you defend your house. But today I stand in solidarity with the citizens of this country—and a global population beyond—and I am confident that we are in the house of “Good”. And in our struggle for good, we have just had a solid strike against our attacker, both literally and symbolically. People celebrating today are celebrating that one small victory in a sea of powerlessness. If you are a person putting all of your efforts into attacking your own housemates for being ‘overly celebratory’ about the death of a man, open your damn eyes. It is not a celebration of violence or murder, it is a celebration of triumph over fear and helplessness. It is a celebration of Good ideas winning over Evil ones. We are in this house together, we fight our battles together, and we win or lose together. Whatever qualms you have with your housemates, save them for tomorrow. If you don’t feel like celebrating, fine. But using this situation as an opportunity to criticize your fellow citizens’ behavior is uncalled for and makes it seem as though you are just looking for excuses to be divisive. In closing, I very deliberately choose *not* to say something malicious to you, though I very well could find something *if* that’s what I were looking to do. I’d simply like to point out the fact that we are all…on.the.same.side.

Mind-programming in the Information Age

Recently in the news, there was a small story about the death of two people during a ‘spiritual retreat’ in Arizona. In case you missed it, basically two people died in this ‘sweat lodge’, and several others were injured. They said that the people were not forced to stay in the sweat lodge if they were feeling physically strained, they were only highly encouraged.
This story got me thinking about how easily the human mind is programmed. After watching an interview with a survivor, I’m convinced that the leaders of the retreat were using psychological control to keep people inside. The question lies at the line between psychological influence and psychological control. How much influence must you have over someone before you are controlling them? Maybe any at all? Regardless, it got me thinking about other situations and existing institutions that use this same type of influence, whether it be negative, such as psychological intimidation, or positive, what you might call motivation. Either way, it’s never healthy. It says something very strong about human psychology. That being, why in the hell are we so gullible? Being a species that passes information from one generation to the next requires that we be gullible to certain extent. Richard Dawkins described this very phenomenon with an evolutionary justification. He proposed in The God Delusion that the reason the human mind is so gullible is because it is necessary for survival in society. To sum up the natural selection of it, children who always listen to their parents learn more about how to survive than children who question everything and need to test everything for themselves (i.e. my mother told me that you should not walk off the side of a cliff, but I need to test it for myself—leads to a dead child). In other words, Dawkins says that maybe we’ve been through a long process of natural selection already where the psychology being selected favors gullibility. Unfortunately, it seems to have set us up to be somewhat overly gullible (has it not?), because our bullshit meters have become so shoddy that we can no longer distinguish when we’re having a ‘spiritual experience’ (which is another topic to be dealt with in itself) from when our very lives are in danger. Dawkins proposes that this be the explanation for why the masses are so gullible to religion and god concepts, because people who listen to everything survive better. If this is the case, what sort of natural selection is going on now? I think it’s a great misfortune, for example, that the public education system in this country seems more inclined to hand-feed children facts than to teach them how to think—because it only perpetuates the ease of programming minds. This is the ‘information age’. Now what we’re going to start needing to survive is a better information filter. For instance, if I tell you that you should go and try jumping off a bridge, well, you know… But to a deeper extent. Obviously foresight is bullshit, but it’s my best guess for what sort of natural selection might be going on. What bullshit can you find in your life?

Our Mortality

Every so often in our lives, we experience moments of clarity which, despite our lack of desire for them, can not ever, ever, be taken back. Amazingly, these brief, but intense moments can, if we acknowledge them, change the course of our lives. Sometimes interpretation can take time. My parents came to visit me at my college apartment this weekend. My dad stopped me in the middle of cooking to show me that our hands are shaped the same. It was so surprising, I didn't know what to say. I've always thought of myself as taking after my mom, but was forced to agree that our hands look the same. I'm not exactly sure why it was so shocking... I can only say that it was one of those moments that makes you stumble, and reevaluate the ideas about life you take for granted. What is it that makes these moments so simultaneously ephemeral and eternal? They've reminded me of my own mortality and power over my life. What makes these moments meld with my consciousness and in my memory so vividly remains something to be discovered.

Tryin ta break down these walls
But somethin in our 'culture' calls
So deep back in ya mind
This shit's never goin ta unwind
Till we can all step back from these rites and mores
Not just with our skins but fully, with our cores

And see the only truth written here--
our only chance for cure:
That pride only serves to divide.

Demagogues of Christianity

I’ve always been a calm and pacifist breed of atheist, which most people who know me, already know. I have issues with strongly religious people, and on occasion, I might begin a philosophical debate with the religious people that I feel I know well, and I ask challenging questions of their beliefs, maybe in the hopes that someday I might just cause a single person to see why I think they’re wrong; and if not that, to at least try and understand myself what they’re thinking and why. (I say “in hopes” because the conversation usually tends to leave both parties even more strongly adherent to their original position). Last night I watched the documentary “Jesus Camp”. Anyone who has seen this film should understand me when I say that the people portrayed in it must be clinically insane. Even in my most severe atheist anger, I’ve always been highly tolerant of the quasi-religious and individuals whose beliefs don’t fall into extreme categories (which could be considered an oxymoron in itself…). Anyone who has yet to see this documentary, I would highly recommend it; however, I would also recommend that you watch with an open mind, and don’t even bother trying to delude yourself about what’s going on. What this film made me realize is that I’m no longer comfortable ‘keeping my mouth shut’ about religious extremism and even religiousness at all. The film focuses on evangelical Christians who essentially turn their children into Jesus robots. What disgusted me the most was how delusional the children are, and the parents think they’re doing their kids the greatest honor in training them to be fanatical! The ignorance literally made me feel like vomiting. The youth minister, Becky Fischer, that the film follows, talks about how Muslims are training their youth to give their lives to god, and that Christians have a moral obligation to train their youth in the same way; even going so far as to claim that they have a stronger duty because “[Christians] have the truth”. What ever happened to Christian pacifism? (Oh yea, it never existed in the first place…) They train the kids at camp that the U.S. government is corrupt and degenerate because it is “no longer” (yes, they actually believe it once was) based on Judeo-Christian values and dogma. The children are taught that they have a moral obligation to bring America “back to Jesus”, and are brainwashed until they are willing to defend these beliefs violently. They are taught that “science doesn’t prove anything” and that a third of their would-have-been friends are not here because they were aborted.Just as I was beginning to feel simultaneously physically ill and angry (for several reasons), the youth minister made a comment that there must be “liberals [who] are just shaking in their boots when they see us”. Instinctually, I was feeling defensive, and I must admit, scared and even traumatized. But it made me see something more: if we fight back in rage and anger, we’re no different than they are. Atheists are supposed to be the group representing reason and level-headedness, we don’t let emotions or prejudice control our actions. I know some theists that practice this to some extent as well, and this I respect immensely. Those who disagree with what is presented in this film must stand against fundamentalists and extremists with a clear mind and rationalism behind them. Those who are religious for emotional reasons or because ‘if god is real, I don’t want to go to hell…’ must see reason as well. Reevaluate what you’re standing for and why. As Richard Dawkins so cogently argued, “creationism [and extremism] are only a symptom of the problem [for atheists and rationalists]; the real battle is between superstition and rationalism”. It’s one thing to lead a moral life (which is not necessarily religious at all), it’s another to be willing to die for dogma or to look forward to apocalypse. The greatest moral fallacy of all is to devalue what you have because there may or may not be something ‘better’ waiting for you; something ‘better’ that you have no ‘proof’ of at all. I’d like to ask these people, “what does religion prove”???