"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." Andy Rooney
This explains why gossip seems so much more powerful than verifiable metrics. People are looking for facts that agree with their opinions, and if they can't find them, they'll just stick with their opinions. Sigh.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
There Is No Victimization of the Majority
Here's the thing...
Those of us who enjoy majority status absolutely CANNOT pretend to be victimized by our majority status.
1. There is no reverse racism. One must have the social power of the dominant race to be racist. Anyone can be prejudiced, even bigoted. But to be racist, one must enjoy the privilege of majority (or in the case of Apartheid era South Africa, the power of the controlling minority). So, attempts to level the playing field, mend systems damaged by institutional racism, make amends for past injustices, or prevent continuing injustices is not a persecution of white people who still, on the whole, control most of this country's wealth and make up most of this country's systems of power.
2. Challenging misogyny, naming sexism, valuing the contributions of women, breaking long standing boys clubs, attempting to change language so that it no longer privelges maleness, and insisting that women are not disqualified because of their gender from any position of authority or leadership is not a persecution of men. To have one's privilege threatened is not the same as to have one's person or personal dignity threatened.
3. Same gender love and attraction does NOT pose a threat to family, society, religion, or the common good. It has always existed. It will always exist. And allowing people to celebrate their love openly and forbidding the oppression of same-gender loving people is not a persecution of heterosexuals, tradition (which is ever evolving anyway), values, patriotism, or faith.
We all enjoy some level of privilege. Recognizing that privilege, renouncing at least some of it as much as is possible, and caring about those who have been disadvantaged by our privilege isn't persecution...it is just, and fair, and ethical.
Aren't we finally evolved enough as a society to acknowledge this and work together to dismantle systems of real oppression that have left far too many people marginalized for far too long?
Those of us who enjoy majority status absolutely CANNOT pretend to be victimized by our majority status.
1. There is no reverse racism. One must have the social power of the dominant race to be racist. Anyone can be prejudiced, even bigoted. But to be racist, one must enjoy the privilege of majority (or in the case of Apartheid era South Africa, the power of the controlling minority). So, attempts to level the playing field, mend systems damaged by institutional racism, make amends for past injustices, or prevent continuing injustices is not a persecution of white people who still, on the whole, control most of this country's wealth and make up most of this country's systems of power.
2. Challenging misogyny, naming sexism, valuing the contributions of women, breaking long standing boys clubs, attempting to change language so that it no longer privelges maleness, and insisting that women are not disqualified because of their gender from any position of authority or leadership is not a persecution of men. To have one's privilege threatened is not the same as to have one's person or personal dignity threatened.
3. Same gender love and attraction does NOT pose a threat to family, society, religion, or the common good. It has always existed. It will always exist. And allowing people to celebrate their love openly and forbidding the oppression of same-gender loving people is not a persecution of heterosexuals, tradition (which is ever evolving anyway), values, patriotism, or faith.
We all enjoy some level of privilege. Recognizing that privilege, renouncing at least some of it as much as is possible, and caring about those who have been disadvantaged by our privilege isn't persecution...it is just, and fair, and ethical.
Aren't we finally evolved enough as a society to acknowledge this and work together to dismantle systems of real oppression that have left far too many people marginalized for far too long?
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Same-sex Marriage Continues to Gain Ground
To those who argue that marriage has always been betwen a man and a woman, let me respond:
Marriage has not always been between A man and A woman...different societies have had different norms. A man and a woman, a man and multiple women, a woman and multiple men (fewer, but they have existed), a man and a woman and a 2-spirited man (who would cross dress as a woman) who would be the husband's second wife (again, few, but it has existed), and there is even historical documentation of same-gender "friends" who have had their unions blessed by the church in the middle ages. Some cultures have allowed divorce and remarriage while others have not. Some have allowed young teens to marry (not appropriate for our day and time, but in the past it happened), and so on. Marriage has meant many things over many centuries across many cultures. Now, just b/c marriage has or has not looked a certain way in times past doesn't negate the need for us to what is just and fair NOW. And while many countries do not recognize gay marriage (yet), other countries do, some first nations do, and now some US states do. The trend will continue to move toward liberty and justice for ALL.
Marriage has not always been between A man and A woman...different societies have had different norms. A man and a woman, a man and multiple women, a woman and multiple men (fewer, but they have existed), a man and a woman and a 2-spirited man (who would cross dress as a woman) who would be the husband's second wife (again, few, but it has existed), and there is even historical documentation of same-gender "friends" who have had their unions blessed by the church in the middle ages. Some cultures have allowed divorce and remarriage while others have not. Some have allowed young teens to marry (not appropriate for our day and time, but in the past it happened), and so on. Marriage has meant many things over many centuries across many cultures. Now, just b/c marriage has or has not looked a certain way in times past doesn't negate the need for us to what is just and fair NOW. And while many countries do not recognize gay marriage (yet), other countries do, some first nations do, and now some US states do. The trend will continue to move toward liberty and justice for ALL.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Streep May Be Best Film Actor of Our Time!
I beseech all deities and benevolent cosmic beings to secure an Oscar for Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady. Great film. And while my politics are very different from someone I used to refer to as Reagan in drag, the film showed a very sincere and human side of Lady Thatcher and I may be forced to refer to the former PM with only respect and even a little admiration from now on (even while still disa...greeing with many of her political views). Her political philosophy might not have been my cup of tea, but her leadership skill and courage are pretty undeniable. When an actor (Streep) can make you love a character that in real life you have not cared much for (Thatcher), an Oscar is definitely in order!!!
Happy Birthday to the Last of the Red Hot Mamas
If you've known me more than 20 minutes you know that i WORSHIP Sophie Tucker (whenever you say "thank God" it is Sophie who says, "You're welcome"). NOT the Soph character that Bette Midler does (though, Bette is also divine), but THE Sophie Tucker - the Last of the Red Hot Mamas! She died 9 months before I was born (draw your own conclusions), but she was born today in 1886. Happy Birthday dear Sophie.
born Jan. 13 - 1886
died Feb. 9 - 1966
Durrell born Nov. 15, 1966 (sometimes the life wheel spins around quickly, no?)
Sophie (a stage name) was born Sonya Kalish in Imperial Russia (actually the Ukraine). When she was a baby her family moved to the US (Connecticut) and opened a restaurant. Her career began singing for tips in the family restaurant. She married when she was 17 (Louis Tuck) and they had a son. The marriage did not last long. She would go on to marry twice again.
She went on to develop an act which she did in Vaudeville and Burlesque theatres. She sang risque songs and since she was a woman of some size, she even acknowledged this while affirming herself in the process (one of her great songs was "Nobody Loves a Fat Girl but Oh How a Fat Girl Can Love!").
She also became famous for songs such as "Last of the Red Mamas" and "Some of These Days" as well as for the mournful "My Yiddishe Mama".
Sophie was sensitive to the racism of the time because in a way she was victimized by it. Theatre managers, early in her career, told her she was too fat and too unattractive for theater audiences, so they would only allow her to perform in "black-face." She was such a dynamic performer she became popular enough to be able to ditch the minstrel style black face performances, but she continued to sing songs influenced by the African American blues and ragtime traditions. For a while, she was known as the Mary Garden of Ragtime (referring to a famous opera singer) of the era.
Sophie was also a union organizer and a supporter of Israel. Additionally, she endowed a theatre arts chair at Brandeis University.
In addition to Vaudeville and Burlesque, Sophie appeared in 4 Broadway shows, made supporting and cameo appearances in numerous films, had her own radio show for a year, and made many talk/variety TV show appearances toward the end of her life.
She is credited with influencing some of the "brassy" female comics and singers that followed her, such as Mae West, Mama Cass, and Joan Rivers. And of course, she is the inspiration for Bette Midlers' famous "Soph" character.
Dear Sophie - you are still in my heart the LAST of the Red Hot Mamas!
born Jan. 13 - 1886
died Feb. 9 - 1966
Durrell born Nov. 15, 1966 (sometimes the life wheel spins around quickly, no?)
Sophie (a stage name) was born Sonya Kalish in Imperial Russia (actually the Ukraine). When she was a baby her family moved to the US (Connecticut) and opened a restaurant. Her career began singing for tips in the family restaurant. She married when she was 17 (Louis Tuck) and they had a son. The marriage did not last long. She would go on to marry twice again.
She went on to develop an act which she did in Vaudeville and Burlesque theatres. She sang risque songs and since she was a woman of some size, she even acknowledged this while affirming herself in the process (one of her great songs was "Nobody Loves a Fat Girl but Oh How a Fat Girl Can Love!").
She also became famous for songs such as "Last of the Red Mamas" and "Some of These Days" as well as for the mournful "My Yiddishe Mama".
Sophie was sensitive to the racism of the time because in a way she was victimized by it. Theatre managers, early in her career, told her she was too fat and too unattractive for theater audiences, so they would only allow her to perform in "black-face." She was such a dynamic performer she became popular enough to be able to ditch the minstrel style black face performances, but she continued to sing songs influenced by the African American blues and ragtime traditions. For a while, she was known as the Mary Garden of Ragtime (referring to a famous opera singer) of the era.
Sophie was also a union organizer and a supporter of Israel. Additionally, she endowed a theatre arts chair at Brandeis University.
In addition to Vaudeville and Burlesque, Sophie appeared in 4 Broadway shows, made supporting and cameo appearances in numerous films, had her own radio show for a year, and made many talk/variety TV show appearances toward the end of her life.
She is credited with influencing some of the "brassy" female comics and singers that followed her, such as Mae West, Mama Cass, and Joan Rivers. And of course, she is the inspiration for Bette Midlers' famous "Soph" character.
Dear Sophie - you are still in my heart the LAST of the Red Hot Mamas!
Monday, January 09, 2012
Joel Osteen and gays
Joel Osteen has unenlightened, non-progressive views about same-gender loving people. What annoys me isn't that he's homophobic, but that gay people are pretending to be surprised about it!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
I'm Not Twisting Your Magic Book
OMG, the hate mail that we at Sunshine Cathedral get from "Christians" telling us that our message affirming the sacred value of all people and the legitimacy of mutual, shared, adult affection (regardless of the genders of the people sharing it) is somehow "twisting the word of God" to suit our own purposes is staggering.
Not only is such hate mail pretty voluminous, it is also completely ridiculous. And here's why. Whereas we will encourage people to think critically about the bible, and while we will place texts in their historical/linguistic/cultural contexts, and while we unashamedly bring all of who we are to the reading of the texts and try to be attentive to the voices that were ignored or silenced in the writing of texts, we do all of that to liberate the bible - not to justify our opinions.
Let me be brutally frank - I don't care what an anonymous ancient writer who thought the world was flat believed about women, samge-gender attraction, child-rearing, the ethics of warfare, or the possibility of certain foods being abominable (I'm mostly annoyed that mushrooms didn't make the list). Ancient writers, compilers, editors, translators, and interpreters had their own agendas, opinions, cultural biases, prejudices, blind spots, preferences, etc. Whatever their's were need not dictate what mine are. I can believe what makes sense to me without needing to find someone who died a few millennia before I was born to agree with me.
So, no writers of hate mail, I am not twisting a magic book to justify my "lifestyle"...because, for me, the book isn't magic and furthermore, I'm not looking up my experiences, opinions, values, needs, or longings in any book to justify them. I have never assumed that my views, beliefs, and opinions needed justification.
Now, I love reading. I love literature. I love history, I love mythology. I love poetry. I love drama. I love biographies. I love historical fiction. So, guess what...I LOVE the bible! But loving it, reading it, commiting large portions of it to memory, thinking about it, wrestling with it, arguing with it, sharing the parts that I find life-giving with others is not the same as "twisting" it. Now, using isolated proof-texts to justify your own hatreds and prejudices, that's pretty twisted, but let's not play biblical tit-for-tat.
I love the bible. I enjoy the bible. I even teach the bible. But I do not WORSHIP the bible. In fact, I freely and vehemently disagree with sections of it (the entire book of Philemon should line bird cages!).
Here's the thing, those who prefer to thump their bibles than to read them carefully:
I don't need the bible to justify my existence, my thoughts, my opinions, my love, my sexuality, or any part of life. And being free from biblical tyranny allows me to enjoy and love the bible all the more. I highly recommend such biblical liberation.
Not only is such hate mail pretty voluminous, it is also completely ridiculous. And here's why. Whereas we will encourage people to think critically about the bible, and while we will place texts in their historical/linguistic/cultural contexts, and while we unashamedly bring all of who we are to the reading of the texts and try to be attentive to the voices that were ignored or silenced in the writing of texts, we do all of that to liberate the bible - not to justify our opinions.
Let me be brutally frank - I don't care what an anonymous ancient writer who thought the world was flat believed about women, samge-gender attraction, child-rearing, the ethics of warfare, or the possibility of certain foods being abominable (I'm mostly annoyed that mushrooms didn't make the list). Ancient writers, compilers, editors, translators, and interpreters had their own agendas, opinions, cultural biases, prejudices, blind spots, preferences, etc. Whatever their's were need not dictate what mine are. I can believe what makes sense to me without needing to find someone who died a few millennia before I was born to agree with me.
So, no writers of hate mail, I am not twisting a magic book to justify my "lifestyle"...because, for me, the book isn't magic and furthermore, I'm not looking up my experiences, opinions, values, needs, or longings in any book to justify them. I have never assumed that my views, beliefs, and opinions needed justification.
Now, I love reading. I love literature. I love history, I love mythology. I love poetry. I love drama. I love biographies. I love historical fiction. So, guess what...I LOVE the bible! But loving it, reading it, commiting large portions of it to memory, thinking about it, wrestling with it, arguing with it, sharing the parts that I find life-giving with others is not the same as "twisting" it. Now, using isolated proof-texts to justify your own hatreds and prejudices, that's pretty twisted, but let's not play biblical tit-for-tat.
I love the bible. I enjoy the bible. I even teach the bible. But I do not WORSHIP the bible. In fact, I freely and vehemently disagree with sections of it (the entire book of Philemon should line bird cages!).
Here's the thing, those who prefer to thump their bibles than to read them carefully:
I don't need the bible to justify my existence, my thoughts, my opinions, my love, my sexuality, or any part of life. And being free from biblical tyranny allows me to enjoy and love the bible all the more. I highly recommend such biblical liberation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
