What the hell Fox?

From its earliest burrowing into the American cultural landscape with Survivor, I have loathed reality television—with the exception of The Mole, not so much because I watched it, but because it looked like a fun one to be on.

Now, it seems that Fox Network has come up with possibly the worst idea for a reality show ever: Someone's Gotta Go.

The premise of the show is that a small business will let one person go each week. The catch? That person is chosen by their co-workers, who can look into their files.

Wow.

... wow.

On April Fools

I'm not sure I really understand the concept of this "holiday." Or its desirability. Let's play pranks on each other and pretend things are true that aren't, just to get a kick out of someone's horror or surprise.

What I'm saying is, why is falseness hilarious? Why do we devote an entire day to playing tricks on each other and disguising the truth?

I mean, here's a real joke: "America has moved from a logical society to an emotional basket case, and it began in 1920 with the passage of the 19th amendment." And even better, one of the comments: "The 4 Ism's, liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism will be the torpedos [sic] that will sink our great ship of state." Too bad they're both serious. Too bad they really blame women's suffrage for the downfall of America.

Here's another, and another, and another: that women's sexuality is dangerous. That it needs to be controlled from a young age, and by girls' fathers. That women belong to their men, be it their fathers or their husbands. That having sex means engaging in a lower standard for one's life, or that it's not "wholesome" or "healthy."

The joke isn't funny - the joke that leads people to completely disassociate from reality like this. So I don't get voluntary disassociation from reality. I don't get why anyone would choose to be a fool, when there are far, far, far too many in our world already.

On Bromance

While in my Rhetorical Criticism the other day, my professor spouted out a word that was new and quite puzzling to me: "bromance". A portmanteau of "bro" and "romance", the word apparently refers to a non-sexual romance between two heterosexual men. A little more from this article from MSN:

The Urban Dictionary defines... more bromance as "the complicated love and affection shared by two straight males." And while it may be a relatively new term within the American vernacular, coined in the 1990s by writer Dave Carnie in the pages of Big Brother Magazine, bromantic relationships have been intricately woven into the fabric of art and pop culture for centuries.

For those more versed in queer/literary theory, this might be more familiar to you vis-à-vis Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick from her book Between Men, as male homosociality. However, in Sedgwick's book male homosociality must be triangulated through a female--in other words, it can never be expressed openly, but rather as a contest between two males over a woman, though the woman is nothing more than an extra prize from victory. It should be said that Sedgwick was referring to Victorian (et ergo Victorian culture) in her book, though a lot of her theories have held true in modern society (Foucault also posits that, in terms of sex, we are more like the Victorians than we would like to admit--this is where Laura's screen name comes from).

But the movie that the MSN article is written in response to, I Love You Man, seems about as far away from that as possible. (From what I gather, the movie is about a man whose best man and fiancée do not get along, and the "hilarity" that ensues from that.) For one, the homosocial love between men is articulated in the title, and is not skirted around. Second, there is no triangulation through a woman, rather the fight is between a man and a woman over a man, and this fight is overt, not subtle.

What does this mean? I really can't say for sure. On one hand, this seems like it would be a good thing, especially in terms of Sedgwick's work, as the inability to openly express homosocial desire has resulted in many instances of sexism and homophobia. On the other, the whole "bro" cultural phenomenon has always bothered me, as it seems to be focused on excessive, almost to the point of grotesque, masculinity--(bad) beer guzzling, sports watching, flamboyantly heterosexual, not to mention the air of ""douchebaggedness" that seems to surround them. To me, this just seems another way to reinforce heterosexism, because it makes male homosocial desire acceptable between two straight men, and thus pushes non-sexual homosexual homosocial interaction outside of the bounds of acceptable, and homosocial interaction between a straight man and a gay man is almost unthinkable.

On Rachel Maddow

I have struggled for some time to come up with something witty to say about Rachel Maddow, my new favorite commentator and visible lesbian. I wanted it to be something that was intelligent, that included commentary on what it is to be "butch" (whatever that means), how her show is so incredible because of its depth and insight, how most of the media coverage of her to this point has been ridiculous and patronizing (and unnecessarily essentializing and feminizing).... etc.

Obviously that's a lot to talk about and I just haven't done it. So let me instead direct you to this wonderful article by Malinda Lo of AfterEllen.

Any time a lesbian who does not fit feminine norms makes a splash in the pop culture landscape (and it doesn’t happen too often), it is followed by a mass of handwringing as the media attempts to make sense of why she looks the way she looks.

...A Rhodes scholar, Maddow has also benefited from Americans’ renewed interest in intellectualism after eight years of Bush idiocy. It’s cool, these days (finally!) to be smart. But I don’t think it’s only her intelligence that people are attracted to, and Maddow’s sex appeal - which is ultimately what Merkin was trying to understand - is a transgressive one.

...A butch lesbian, at least in the ideal, is not the best of both worlds, male and female — she is a new world. She is the discovery, every day, of how a woman can be a woman without the trappings of femininity. The set of a woman’s shoulders, the way she crosses her legs, the angle of her hips when she walks - all of these are signals of butchness. And we know it when we see it. That kind of recognition takes place in the gut.

So good. On all points.

On Conspiracies: PC Viruses

I admit, I am prone to conspiracy theories. I think I inherited this from my grandmother.

There's been quite the string of viruses running the email circuit at my university; they come up from someone you know, with your name and a message similar to the following: (I messed with the url just in case any of you are silly enough to actually click on it.)

Othervictorian,

I'm not sure whether you have seen it?

http://297.225.219.xxx/redundancy_payment.zip

Panda de Tueur

But I seriously sometimes wonder if there are Mac enthusiasts (extremists?) sitting around coming up with these things to get people to just give up and become a switcher. Seriously.

Coffee Art. Not the Frothy Kind.

Check out this great article in the NY Times today. It's about a graphic artist named Christoph Niemann, and his latest series, a collection of "napkin art" (for lack of a better word). The art is stains on a napkin (presumably using coffee?), creating images that accompany a brief story just below the napkin. They all have to do with coffee culture and personal anecdotes about experiences with coffee. 

As an addict myself, here's one of my favorites. Click on it to enlarge.

Along with the accompanying text/story:

Here’s a chart that shows my coffee bias over the years.

For good measure I have added my bagel preferences over the same period. (1) Drip coffee, (2) Starbucks, (3) blueberry bagels, (4) sesame bagels, (5) poppy-seed bagels, (6) everything bagels

Please don’t hold my brief affair with blueberry bagels against me. I cured myself of this aberration.

Love it. :D

New Lows in Political Discourse

I hesitate to bring this up, just because it's so explosive and ridiculous. But I think it clearly illustrates the depths to which people can sink to smear others, politicians or otherwise.

I think the video betrays its true intent with the last second - "NoHussein.org." This isn't about abortion or children - it's about simple, cynical, any means necessary politics. It uses children as a political tool, rather than actually trying to defend them through constructive activism.

Obama's made it clear many times that his position on this has been grossly misconstrued. Infanticide is beyond cruel and inhumane, and I should hope we all have the sense to realize that NO ONE, regardless of party, religion, or even opinion on abortion, would support something like this.

Furthermore, who's to believe that the nurses and medical staff would actually take part in such a thing? I know many nurses, close friends and family, and they'd sooner break the law and/or be fired than do any such thing. No one would do that, and I'm surprised the woman in the video apparently did.

Who's Being Sexist? Right, Palin's Fans.

Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain's campaign have spent so much time lately arguing about the sexist coverage and criticism of Sarah Palin that one can't help but wonder if all this is just stalling for time while she learns enough about foreign policy to be able to actually engage reporters and the public.

But if the campaign is going to complain about the supposedly rampant sexist coverage of Palin, then they should also work to undermine the sexism rampant in their own base. Although these people might be among the biggest supporters of Palin's bid for the VP, they do more to sexualize and discriminate against her based on her sex than does the media any day of the week.  I think these pictures can say more than I can for proof. Enjoy.

This one is my personal favorite. Female fans of Palin dressing themselves up in toy red lips, thus accentuating her most important quality (or qualification?).



But let's not forget the bumper stickers being put out by some fans... "Vice President I'd Like to..." well, you know. And since Hillary got a nutcracker doll made of her, why shouldn't Sarah Palin enjoy some schoolgirl action?

Yeah, try again about who's actually perpetuating the sexist coverage of your candidate.

Guilty Pleasures - or - Songs I Should Hate but Don't

As some of you may or may not know, the Pussycat Dolls (of "Don't Ya" fame) have released a new single called "When I Grow Up".

They can't sing, the beats are typical, the lyrics are horrendous, and yet, I find myself listening to it over and over again.

In all regards I should hate the song, I mean it's like Barbie in music form - a song that tells girls to worry only about fame and their appearance ("When I grow up I wanna have boobies." That sounds more like something a transsexual would say, but I digress...). It promotes a materialistic view of life that is just simply outrageous and unacceptable.

So why do I like it? I can't understand my love of crappy pop music sometimes, it's like a wound I keep picking at. I guess you need something to dance like a whore too...

Sorry this post sucks, and I haven't been posting really at all lately. I have been very busy and very tired.

Brick - New Noir

Brick, a 2006 film written and directed by Rian Johnson, is worth seeing for its versatility and re-imaging of old school film noir. Much the same way Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet juxtaposed the language of classical Shakespeare with modern imagery and culture, Johnson places the lingo of 1940s and '50s private detectives in the setting of modern drug rings and high school drama.

I mean seriously, check out this dialogue:

"Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you."

..."Ask any dope rat where their junk sprang and they'll say they scraped it from that who scored it from this who bought it off so and after four or five connections the list always ends with the Pin. But I bet you got every rat in town together and said 'show your hands' if any of them've actually seen the Pin, you'd get a crowd of full pockets."

For a film geek like me, this is just awesome.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whom you may remember from 10 Things I Hate About You, plays the lead guy who tries to uncover the happenings that led to the murder of his ex-girlfriend. He seems to channel a strange but compelling combination of Humphrey Bogart in Maltese Falcon and Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain - the semi-silent but determined outcast with an instinct for digging for answers in the right places, motivated by a still broken heart and lingering sentiment for the past love in question.

Emelie de Ravin, who is now fabulous on ABC's Lost as Claire, makes only a few appearances in the film but is beautiful nonetheless. She plays the ex-girlfriend, an elusive and frightened character that begs for sympathy without saying much at all. 

The cinematography is great, and the use of non-linear time (typically via flashback) is one of the traditional markers of classic film noir. The character Laura fulfills the role of the femme fatale of unknown allegiance, another noir marker that was first made famous by the eternally amazing Marlene Dietrich as the genre came of age (in America) in the 1940s. Nearly all the performances are spot-on, and the setting of this story against high school seniors (rather than midlife detectives and criminals) makes for a backburner commentary on the kind of reality that kids grow up with today.  

Overall, the film is an excellent resurfacing of this under appreciated genre, and is a refreshing change of pace from the usual Hollywood attempts at something different.

Wall-E: Imitation and Replication

(This is also posted on my other blog, linked on the side of this page!)

So I think it's time for me to chime in on Wall-E. I've seen the film twice now in theaters, much to the dismay of my grad student wallet. I loved it from the moment "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" from Hello, Dolly echoed through the digitized streets of a desolate version of New York City. The recognition of the skyscrapers as no more than buildings made of compressed garbage and cultural remnants began a long series of stunning visual commentaries on our seeming direction. And, speaking from a geek's perspective, the allusions to 2001: A Space Odyssey only made the movie that much better in the canon of sci-fi flicks.

But if I may, I'd like to explore the more subtle suggestions of the film when it comes to gender.

I should first say that I very much appreciate the creation of Wall-E and Eve as, for the most part, androgynous characters. Granted, Wall-E is noticeably mechanical and angular - traditionally masculine associations - while Eve is smooth and curvy. Also, Wall-E's electronic "voice" operates at a lower frequency than Eve's. Nonetheless, after carefully watching the film, the robots never use any gendered pronouns or language toward one another. The robots not only remain androgynous, but they also defy traditional gender stereotypes at various points. As The Pop Perspective points out, Eve was the one to carry a weapon and exhibit violence, while Wall-E was the (literally) starry-eyed dreamer and lover. In fact, we only read them as male or female because that is the first categorization our minds make upon encountering a new individual. We look for anything, any small attribute (like the ones I listed above) to give us a hint of sex. But these robots are without sex - we have assigned them an arbitrary sex in our minds. A queer couple, to say the least.

However, my favorite part about this film may in fact be that, in numerous ways, the actions of Wall-E and other characters only serve to confirm Judith Butler's suggestions that gender, and all the acts of coupling, friendship, and the very ways we relate interpersonally on any level, are imitative. The film presents us with a world devoid of humans, where Wall-E is the last remaining garbage compacting robot. Although he is without human companionship, he is not without human ritual. As the action progresses, we watch Wall-E discover the intricacies of humanity through various cultural remnants like Hello, Dolly. It is here, in societal representations of love stories and relationships, that Wall-E learns about holding hands, about companionship, about how "it only takes a moment to be loved your whole life long." When Eve comes along, Wall-E has a chance to imitate these devices. One wonders how Wall-E would have interacted with Eve had he not discovered these cultural productions that taught him, like all the rest of us, how men and women relate to each other and view the world.

Furthermore, Wall-E shows us that these imitative rituals are indeed perpetuated through society and media. This, of course, is not surprising. Most people (I hope) are aware of the power of media to simultaneously reflect and reproduce cultural values, thus creating the classic question, "Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?" Wall-E inherits these romantic rituals through Hello, Dolly, just as the captain of the ship later learns how to live on Earth from pictures and writings stored in the ship's database. Our society and its values are continually replicated and passed down through these rituals and cultural productions.

This movie, when considering these points, leaves me wondering how we would recreate ourselves if given a blank slate. If we'd been in Wall-E's position, except without the Barbara Streisand and Michael Crawford, what brave new world could we invent?

This Week the News Was Unreal

Not only am I a news junkie, I must also keep track of multiple Web sites belonging to various media entities for my summer internship at a local newspaper. Ergo, there are a lot press releases and news briefs I go through on a weekly basis. And this week there seemed to be an unusual amount of stories that were simply unbelievable, so much so that I felt the need to present them here.

First off, there was the post on Jezebel.com about the announcement that Olympic officials in Beijing will be subjecting “suspicious-looking” women to sex tests to make sure they are not men. This announcement has been rippling through all the major feminist blogs, so there’s not a lot I can really contribute to this discussion beyond the fact that ridiculous doesn’t even begin to adequately describe the situation. And also, I feel sorry for the women who will inevitably be tested because I can’t imagine anything more demeaning than being subjected to a sex test (well, I can imagine some things) but as far as stupid decisions are concerned, this is pretty brainless.

Apparently a monster washed up on the shore near New York City earlier this week. I’ve examined the picture of this thing for way longer than I probably needed to, and the only conclusion I can come up with is that it is a. dead and b. decomposing. My favorite theories so far are that it is either a turtle without a shell or a part of a viral marketing campaign.

Speaking of ill-made decisions and things washing up on shore, the body of the Brazilian priest who took off in a chair affixed to hundreds of latex helium balloons was identified this week. His death is rather unfortunate, but much like the previously mentioned monster, there were several theories being passed around as to what happened to him, including one that suggested he floated away ... to heaven. I’m not really sure how seriously that was put out there, but I guess you could say he made it to heaven after all.

Then there was the story about the inventor who showed off his jet pack at an annual convention for experimental aircraft. As far as futuristic modes of transportation are concerned, I’m more of a flying car kind of girl, but jet packs are still pretty cool. This guy’s doesn’t seem like it as it only stays in the air for less than a minute, but then again the first airplanes didn’t do all that much either in the beginning.

This morning in the daily e-mail I receive from CNN.com, the top story was about someone getting stabbed and beheaded on a Greyhound Bus in Canada. In my opinion, decapitation is one of the most horrifying ways to die, so I can only sort of imagine the terror that knowing that some guy who was sitting on the bus with you was stabbed and beheaded by some other guy who was sitting on the bus with you. I don’t ride the bus in St.Louis, but next month on a visit to Denver I’m going to have to take the bus a few times by myself. Can you guess what I’m going to be thinking about?

Finally, this was news to me this week: I was informed that a man in Nevada (sort of) owns land on the moon. Four words for you: capitalism at its best.

Surprised?

It appears that now the Bush administration is attempting to classify birth control and IUDs as.... abortion.

That's right, you heard me correctly. Abortion.

I cannot believe the lengths conservatives will go to try and make babies happen, as if the world wasn't overpopulated as it is.

At least Obama has outright opposed the bill - very uncharacteristic of a person running for president - and McCain has declined comment. The pill has been around for so long I doubt this will go anywhere, I just can't believe someone would actually try this.

Double Review Day!

Yes folks, it seems that I am on a review roll. Today I will be reviewing two fabulous products: Fleur de Sel Ice Cream and iPod Touch 2.0.

First off, the tasty stuff: Fleur de Sel.


Fleur de Sel is an offering from Haagen-Dazs' Reserve line. I have never been the biggest fan of Haagen-Dazs; not because it is bad ice cream, but because it's not good enough for the price. Yes, it is better than most cheaper ice cream, but it's not that much better, and the flavors are fairly dull. Their more exotic flavors usually involve nuts of some sort, which I have never been a big fan of (I know to many this would signal that I should not write a food review, to that I say: "fuck you"), for example, I would love to try the Caramelized Pear and Almond, but don't care for almonds.

There is one flavor of Haagen-Dazs that I do see fit to buy, and that is Dulce de Leche. H-D makes, by far, the best Dulce de Leche ice cream I have tasted, which is partly why I was enticed to try Fleur de Sel, which had caramel as the primary flavor of the ice cream, but with a twist.

The flavor is a combination of caramel ice cream, caramel ribbons, and chocolate covered caramel pieces sprinkled with... salt. But not just any salt, Fleur de Sel (as if you hadn't guessed), which is an expensive salt hand collected from Brittany in France (fleur de sel means "flower of salt" en Français).

My first bite only yielded ice cream and caramel ribbons, which of course was good, but I was waiting to taste the fancy-pants salt. The second bite was of a chocolate covered piece, and I was in heaven. At first I tasted chocolate and caramel, but that flavor melted away into the salty (but sweet and delicate) taste of the fleur de sel. The flavors blended perfectly together, the caramel giving way to the salt and vice versa.

The price is higher (I paid a dollar more than regular H-D) and the quantities are limited, but I would recommend you go out and give it a try. Well, assuming that you are a little adventurous in your desert tastes. Now, if only they'd release a pepper and chocolate ice cream (they have chili and cucumber Popsicles, but that doesn't sound all too enticing...)

Part II: iPod Touch v. 2.0

On July 13th the iPhone 3G was released to much fanfare. On the same day, all of us losers with iPod Touches were given the joy that is the App Store. We all did a little cheer and started staring down at our small screens.

I got my Touch when I bought my new laptop and it has pretty much taken over my life, as now I actually schedule my time, which has never happened before. The interface of the iPod Touch is ingenious, and it makes it annoying to use my old iPod (which I still use because it has a lot more storage). All-in-all, the touch is like a mini laptop, doing much more than any PDA I had experienced before (not that I really had that much experience before).

The 2.0 update has made the Touch that more awesome. First off, the Touch/iPhone can now connect to secure wi-fi networks, which means I can connect to my school's wi-fi (hello goofing off in class). The App Store has turned my Touch into a little gaming/chatting/Facebooking device, which makes me want the iPhone that much more as I can now communicate with it in every way except phone calls. The wi-fi in my apartment is exceptionally horrible and for some reason the Touch usually connects better than my MacBook, so it has made browsing/chatting in bed so much easier (well, not so much on the eyes).

The bad: the biggest flaw of the iPhone OS is that it can only run one program at a time (with the exception of playing music), thus it makes multitasking difficult at best. It can only load webpages one at a time, and the update has taken away the ability to have Mail check for new messages on a regular interval. Also, I sometimes use French and when I went to the "International" settings dialog, the easy to understand "English (US), English (UK), French (France), et al." has been replaced with "en_us, en_uk, fr_fr" which one can deduce, but is not as convenient. Also, and this is more of a critique of third party apps, the problem with many apps that utilize the accelerometer alone is that the accelerometer can often be a little wonky. I downloaded the much advertised "Super Monkey Ball" only to be frustrated by the fact that sometimes I would randomly switch directions when barely moving my touch.

All-in-all, the update is well worth the $10, I just hope that the next one will add some multitasking functions. I foresee great things for the iPhone/iPod Touch, by far it is the best music playing device I've experienced, but Apple could do so much more. I am hoping for some exciting announcements next WWDC.

Well, that was a very fattening and nerdy post. Hope you liked it!

Bedroom Secrets of an Ex-Lesbian

Check this book description of a recently released 52-page book, Bedroom Secrets of an Ex-Lesbian:  

As a former lesbian, the Christian author dispels the myth that a woman can please another woman better than a man can. She shares her multi-orgasm techniques that encompass far more than just foreplay. Thus, Bedroom Secrets of an Ex-Lesbian is for every man who has ever lost his woman to another woman or who simply seeks to satisfy his woman so she will never consider being with someone else. This book is also for every woman who wants to help her man satisfy her sexually.

Sigh.  Where to begin?

Notice how the information is only legitimate because it comes from a Christian author? (Otherwise the qualification of "former lesbian, now Christian" would be entirely unnecessary.)  Notice how this information is for the sole purpose of making it so your woman "will never consider being with someone else," and not for the actual pleasure of the woman?

Here's the best part.  In small print, across the top cover of the book, is written:

A Straightforward Guide to Extracting the Elusive Female Orgasm.

Women's sexuality (homogenous as it is, since this one little book applies to every woman) is again portrayed as a secret to be revealed only to men. The "Elusive Female Orgasm" is apparently not something to be experienced or given or enjoyed - no, no, no. It's something to be "extracted," like a wisdom tooth while under heavy sedative. And if this woman has had enough experience to write 52 pages on satisfying women, she should damn well know it's not that elusive.

And, finally, do I really need to comment on the double-entendre of "a straightforward guide" written by an ex-lesbian?  I think not.

Review: Santogold - Santogold

The last review on this blog was not a very favorable one, so I figured I'd review something I actually liked so I don't seem like a cold, petty bastard. Today's review is the self-titled album by Santogold. Santogold hails from Philadelphia, where she was a member of the punk/ska group Stiffed. I haven't heard Stiffed, so I can't really make a reference to her previous work.

General Feeling: Listening to this album is like listening to a mix tape and then suddenly realizing that it is really just one artist, and that is, surprisingly, a good thing. Ska, grime, and post-punk influences run rampant and play nice on this pretty good debut.

Full Review: Santogold's album is not exactly the most coherent in style, but all of the styles that she uses mesh well together in the framework of the album. The variance in styles help keep the album interesting and makes you want to listen to the whole thing in a sitting because you are not bogged down with the same hooks and tricks every song. The album starts off with "L.E.S. Artistes" which sounds like a Tegan and Sara song, only more electronic. The song "You'll Find a Way" shows Santogold's ska roots, and reminiscent of No Doubt but... good.

The two artists that Santogold seems to channel the most are M.I.A. and Siouxsie Sue. The use of rap and noise channel M.I.A., especially the songs "Shove It" and "Creator". While Santogold is not near as good as M.I.A. it is nice to see someone else follow in M.I.A.'s footsteps (besides Lady Sovereign, if you believe Last.fm). The song "My Superman" is so creepily like Siouxsie that I had trouble believing I wasn't listening to Mantaray.

Overall, this album is amazing fun, good dance songs, good trip-hop songs, and never boring. There is a pretty good remix of "You'll Find a Way" tacked on at the end. Some have said that the lack of coherence in style will hurt Santogold, I say that if she keeps it interesting it will only make her stronger. Good work!

Final Word: Buy it! I would say go over to Emusic and download it there!

An Active Christian

So speaking of Christianity and homosexuality, I'm sure a lot of you have been hearing about this Brent Rinehart from Oklahoma.  (For more details, check out this article from the Oklahoman, or this video on CNN for an interview with Rinehart.)  He is running for reelection to the office of county commissioner and has created a campaign material in the style of a comic book.  What's notable about this, other than what the use of a comic book as campaign material suggests about Rinehart's attitude toward the intelligence of the average vote, is the remarkably blatant homophobia pervasive throughout the piece.

The comic describes Rinehart as a "conservative Republican and active Christian."  The sixteen page campaign mailing contains numerous references to Rinehart's fervent Christianity and his various accomplishments in the time he has already served in office.  A demon and an angel run throughout the comic, with the demon saying things like "If only I could get the kids to believe that homosexuality is normal..." and the angel saying "Not with Brent around you won't!"  One image even depicts the caricature of a gay man approaching a boy scout, who is yelling for help, presumably to fend off the impending molestation.

In the video, he describes his platform as roads, bridges, and "exposing the homosexual agenda."  (By the way, this is still my favorite article on the idea of "the gay agenda.")

I really don't even know what to say about this.  Somedays I just can't believe that my vote, with my constant attempts to educate myself on the intricacies of the issues at hand, is worth the same as this guy's vote, who can't even spell the very insults he casually tosses around throughout this so-called campaign literature.

What. The. Hell.

The Double Edged Sword: Two Ideas of Christianity, Part 2

The other documentary I watched on the subject of Christianity (see below post) was “Jesus Camp.”

Essentially, “Jesus Camp” follows a group of three charismatic Christian children who attend the Kids on Fire School of Ministry, a summer camp in Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. Although I was already aware of much of the information presented in the documentary, there were still a few things that managed, to borrow a phrase from “Family Guy,” grind my gears.

First, there were the children themselves. These children were surprisingly well-spoken and obviously intelligent, especially when asked about their beliefs. However, I find it difficult to absorb that these children understand precisely what they’re talking about. One of the kids, who was 12 years old when “Jesus Camp” was filmed, said he became born-again at the age of five. My question is how can you fully comprehend the meaning of salvation when you are five years old? As one of my friends put it, when you’re five, you don’t have anything to be born again from.

On that note, during the actual camp, there is much discussion and hollering about taking back America for Jesus. It’s somewhat bizarre listening to children talking about what’s wrong with America, especially considering I, as a 20 year old college student and aspiring journalist, still have only a basic understanding of our political system and the American psyche overall. It might be possible for a five-year old to know and accept Jesus into his or her heart, but still I highly doubt a young child can fully comprehend the complexities of American morality.

Also, I thought it was interesting for each of children the filmmakers followed, their respective mothers – but not their fathers – were also interviewed. For a group of people who place such an importance on the nuclear family, it seems rather strange the fathers’ voices were not heard.

Finally, there’s a scene in the film where the leader of a major fundamentalist Christian organization talks to the children at the camp about the evils of abortion. Object to abortion, fine, but I worry that instilling so much fear into children about it will cause some sort of slippery slope as far as reproductive choice, or lack thereof, is concerned. After all, the children are shown praying for the Supreme Court to end Roe v. Wade., which is a chilling image in and of itself. The path from opposing abortion to advocating abstinence only sex education isn’t so long, and it’s obvious how far that’s gotten us.

At any rate, I respect the people who appeared in the film insofar as fundamental Christianity is their chosen path, but I think I will continue to do what I’ve been doing, which is respectfully keeping my distance from them.

For Butler Tells Me So

Just as a side note regarding the film "For the Bible Tells Me So," as mentioned in the previous post...

The film offers various scientific evidence, witty arguments, and compelling stories working to undermine the idea that homosexuality is a choice, but in doing so also offers some troubling assumptions about gender and its supposed links to sexuality.  A short cartoon in the style of a public service announcement captures this duality very well.

The narrator offers various arguments against homosexuality as a choice - those parts based on scientific study (which therefore supposedly carry more legitimacy).  Apparently, several recent studies have suggested that having older brothers significantly increases the odds of the youngest broth being homosexual.  This is - supposedly - because the mother's body reads a male fetus as a foreign object and produces antibodies against it.  The more male children the mother has, the "more adept her body becomes at feminizing the fetus, which may explain why with every successive boy, the odds that he will be gay go up significantly."

(I would have just guessed statistics... the more kids you have that aren't, the higher chance your next one will be.  But what do I know?  And what does "feminizing the fetus" even mean?  Pink chromosomes?)

This otherwise potentially informative cartoon actually reinforces widely-held myths about gender and sexuality, most notably that femininity is biological and, when coupled with the male sex, implies homosexuality.  To present the argument that homosexuality is a genetic matter implies only genetic causality, which may or may not include room for other theories like constructivism.  However, to argue that homosexuality is a genetic matter because the male fetus is "feminized" and therefore increasingly likely to be gay implies that it is in fact the biological assignment of femininity to males that causes homosexuality, not some genetic combination that occurs randomly in roughly ten percent of the population.

The concept of biological femininity only reinforces the commonly held belief in the synonymy of gender and sex, implicitly guiding viewers to the idea that gender is something essential, inheritable, and genetic.  It disallows for the possibility of societal influence and construction of gender roles, performance, and identity.

In other words, it's one thing to say that being gay is genetic. It's an entirely different thing to say that being gay (in the case of men, anyway) is because of feminization. Doing so only falsely links sexuality to gender.

The Double-Edged Sword: Two Ideas of Christianity, Part 1

I no longer to go to church, but the doings and trappings of Christianity in America still remain of interest to me. So, with that interest in mind, I decided to watch two recent documentaries with two rather divergent takes on where Christianity in America has taken us.

The first of these is “For the Bible Tells Me So,” which examines the intersection of Christianity and homosexuality. I watched the film with rapt attention. So long used to the negatives Christianity hurls at the GLBT community (although plenty of examples of those are also presented), it was refreshing to hear the opposing side, the mantra of which is homophobia is the sin, not homosexuality.

The meat of the film is interviews with a group of Christian GLBT people – some famous, some not – and their families. Although each family came to accept their gay child in different ways, all but one family were united in the fight against hate and discrimination.

Images of those families in picket lines and gay pride parades in addition to the words of religious scholars and leaders debunking the myth of what the Bible says about homosexuality made me feel optimistic about the possibilities of bridging the gap between being gay and being Christian.

I have seen firsthand the damage church teachings can inflict upon Christians who also happen to be gay. My first girlfriend was raised Baptist, and I recall at times she would feel conflicted about being gay because, she told me, of what she had been told all her life, e.g. homosexuals are bad people and are going to hell. No one deserves that – to be told you are evil and worthless because of something as intrinsic to you as the color of your eyes.

Yet, that hateful rhetoric continues ever on, perpetuated by such faith-based organizations as Focus on the Family, which was spotlighted in the film. Indeed, the climax of “For the Bible Tells Me So” is when one of the families interviewed by the filmmakers goes to a protest at the Focus on the Family headquarters and reads a letter addressed to the notoriously homophobic Dr. James Dobson, the organization’s director. The family is then arrested for crossing a picket line and is filmed being taken away by the police.

Hopefully, such courageous acts will inspire other families to take a stand and reject the idea that homosexuals are unloved by God. Let us love one another, for the Bible tells me so.  Homophobia is the sin, not homosexuality.