So, I'm a bit behind times, but have you seen this video of Putin's latest take down of Bush?
Not that I'm interested in having Russian style democracy in the U.S. (Although, with the Real ID, that lovely document carrying at all times portion of the Russian experience might be coming to a state near you!), but stuff like this is why I just can't bring myself to completely dislike Putin. He's got guts. He's intelligent. Witty. And he calls Bush for what he is to his face.
Oh, and yes -- if push comes to shove, I'd rather be living under a Russian style democracy than the mess that's passing under that name in Iraq right now. I think the survival rates in Russia are a bit better for the average person on the street.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Wherein Metra's Butt is Kicked by the Last Semester of Undergrad
Yes . . . as in, I think this has been my most difficult semester despite having the lightest course load to date.
That and the whole questioning of what I want to do with my future thing. (Granted, if I don't receive any financial aid that decision could become easier in the short term as I try to weld my way into the camo boys' club.) I've been admitted an M.A. program with a specialization in Orthodox Christian Studies and I've had an awkward conversation with the director about how I'm not o/Orthodox. (His response: "But your name is Demetria.") Unfortunately, my mind has spun into overdrive and is now convinced that I can't possibly survive moving across the country, and then throwing in doubts that I'll be able to fit in with the program -- what with that whole extremely heterodox thing. I then remind it that I would be in Berkeley, CA -- I will be able to find many places in which I can be heterodox to my heart's content -- but it doesn't listen. The option is a general MTS program in Atlanta, which will have very few opportunities to work on Orthodoxy but lots of opportunities for queer theology, general iconography/metaphor/imagery, and Buddhism of the Tibetan variety. Atlanta also has the drawback of not really getting me out of the South. Somewhat soothed by the possibility of working summers with an absolutely amazing youth program. And neither program has gotten back to me with scholarship/financial info.
I have discovered that schools favor M.Div. students and show little love to the M.A./M.T.S. students. 'Tis frustrating.
In the course of doing some quick searching for the current paper, I have also learned -- according to Harding University -- ponytails on men are an "extreme" hairstyle. Yes. Special, no? That and gays and lesbians seem to be completely invisible at CofC schools -- although, to give credit where it might be due, Harding's sexual harassment policy seems to be phrased in a way would protect GLBT students from being harassed because of their identity. I can't be certain thats the purpose, but if it is -- it's an admirable action on the part of a University, regardless of any other policies they have.
That and the whole questioning of what I want to do with my future thing. (Granted, if I don't receive any financial aid that decision could become easier in the short term as I try to weld my way into the camo boys' club.) I've been admitted an M.A. program with a specialization in Orthodox Christian Studies and I've had an awkward conversation with the director about how I'm not o/Orthodox. (His response: "But your name is Demetria.") Unfortunately, my mind has spun into overdrive and is now convinced that I can't possibly survive moving across the country, and then throwing in doubts that I'll be able to fit in with the program -- what with that whole extremely heterodox thing. I then remind it that I would be in Berkeley, CA -- I will be able to find many places in which I can be heterodox to my heart's content -- but it doesn't listen. The option is a general MTS program in Atlanta, which will have very few opportunities to work on Orthodoxy but lots of opportunities for queer theology, general iconography/metaphor/imagery, and Buddhism of the Tibetan variety. Atlanta also has the drawback of not really getting me out of the South. Somewhat soothed by the possibility of working summers with an absolutely amazing youth program. And neither program has gotten back to me with scholarship/financial info.
I have discovered that schools favor M.Div. students and show little love to the M.A./M.T.S. students. 'Tis frustrating.
In the course of doing some quick searching for the current paper, I have also learned -- according to Harding University -- ponytails on men are an "extreme" hairstyle. Yes. Special, no? That and gays and lesbians seem to be completely invisible at CofC schools -- although, to give credit where it might be due, Harding's sexual harassment policy seems to be phrased in a way would protect GLBT students from being harassed because of their identity. I can't be certain thats the purpose, but if it is -- it's an admirable action on the part of a University, regardless of any other policies they have.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Du-buh?
Questions that have run through my mind recently:
Just what is Bill O'Reilly referring to when the words "the far left" leave his mouth? Does he realize that the "far" left actually isn't that excited about Barack Obama? I suspect the far left is too terrifying for the BOR to even imagine.
Disregarding other things Rev. Wright may have said (my gut feeling is that, for the most part, he's being unfairly taken out of context), how on earth is the statement, "America is run by rich, white people," incendiary? It just seems to be factual. Angry, yes. Offensive, no.
Why is this book in existence? Seriously, I kinda want to get my hands on it for laughs. I love the scrambling to shore up the hegemony of representation. And my two cents on the matter: Eastern Orthodoxy is very much Christian.
Why does much of Christianity purport to conform to Chalcedon and yet completely ignore the FULL HUMANITY of Jesus Christ?
How did I manage to miss the word theosis until today? How sad for me. Much easier to say than bogochelovechstvo.
How can it be so difficult to find a picture of two broken pots on the interwebs?
Now leaving my brainspace...
On another note -- to anyone and everyone celebrating the Resurrection today -- Happy Easter!
Just what is Bill O'Reilly referring to when the words "the far left" leave his mouth? Does he realize that the "far" left actually isn't that excited about Barack Obama? I suspect the far left is too terrifying for the BOR to even imagine.
Disregarding other things Rev. Wright may have said (my gut feeling is that, for the most part, he's being unfairly taken out of context), how on earth is the statement, "America is run by rich, white people," incendiary? It just seems to be factual. Angry, yes. Offensive, no.
Why is this book in existence? Seriously, I kinda want to get my hands on it for laughs. I love the scrambling to shore up the hegemony of representation. And my two cents on the matter: Eastern Orthodoxy is very much Christian.
Why does much of Christianity purport to conform to Chalcedon and yet completely ignore the FULL HUMANITY of Jesus Christ?
How did I manage to miss the word theosis until today? How sad for me. Much easier to say than bogochelovechstvo.
How can it be so difficult to find a picture of two broken pots on the interwebs?
Now leaving my brainspace...
On another note -- to anyone and everyone celebrating the Resurrection today -- Happy Easter!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Pipe dreams of the Kingdom of the God
Check out this article from Alternet on the New Atheists.
I've only read a few pages of Sam Harris, but something struck me -- just within those few pages as he denigrated the idea of nonviolence and the work of Gandhi -- that something was very wrong with his argument. The more I heard arguments borrowed from Harris and company, the more it appeared that something was very wrong. Something was very wrong in the way the authors were defining religion, and something else was wrong there, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
I think this article gets at a lot of what I was feeling to be wrong with Harris's arguments. And has some good points on its own. My one caveat is that I'm not certain the degree to which I want to endorse the rejection of the idea of progressing towards a better future. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about the idea (as any Russian Studies major can tell you). I'm more inclined to caution against thinking that progress as a society is inevitable -- it must be worked for and carefully guarded through vigilance -- and to firmly reject any utopian ideas that deny the value (and the rights) of the individual. Further, it is an imperative to understand that movement (forwards, backwards, or sideways) creates a shift in perspective, which changes the very vision of the end, the utopia, the kingdom of God. One can have a sense of what utopia should be -- a construction, if you will -- which allows one to analyze and critique the present, but one must not confuse that construction with reality.
I've only read a few pages of Sam Harris, but something struck me -- just within those few pages as he denigrated the idea of nonviolence and the work of Gandhi -- that something was very wrong with his argument. The more I heard arguments borrowed from Harris and company, the more it appeared that something was very wrong. Something was very wrong in the way the authors were defining religion, and something else was wrong there, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
I think this article gets at a lot of what I was feeling to be wrong with Harris's arguments. And has some good points on its own. My one caveat is that I'm not certain the degree to which I want to endorse the rejection of the idea of progressing towards a better future. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about the idea (as any Russian Studies major can tell you). I'm more inclined to caution against thinking that progress as a society is inevitable -- it must be worked for and carefully guarded through vigilance -- and to firmly reject any utopian ideas that deny the value (and the rights) of the individual. Further, it is an imperative to understand that movement (forwards, backwards, or sideways) creates a shift in perspective, which changes the very vision of the end, the utopia, the kingdom of God. One can have a sense of what utopia should be -- a construction, if you will -- which allows one to analyze and critique the present, but one must not confuse that construction with reality.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Notes on the Wacky Weather
Yesterday, my toes experienced a brief and beautiful liberation as I broke out my Jesus sandals.
Today, it's snowing. And not just spitting. Snowing. No acclumulation on the streets yet, but the yard areas on campus are covered nicely.
I got up this morning, kicked around for an hour, and next thing I know the kids in the high school across the street are leaving, and I'm thinking -- oh, crap, did I oversleep? No, nope. Memphis is just getting some snow tonight.
Fun times.
Today, it's snowing. And not just spitting. Snowing. No acclumulation on the streets yet, but the yard areas on campus are covered nicely.
I got up this morning, kicked around for an hour, and next thing I know the kids in the high school across the street are leaving, and I'm thinking -- oh, crap, did I oversleep? No, nope. Memphis is just getting some snow tonight.
Fun times.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Do Conservatives Need Safe Spaces?
Yes, it's a joke. (Has momentary daydream of a guerrilla movement, then simultaneously reminds herself that she's ideologically a pacifist and looks forward to the arrival of Les Guerilleres.)
Angry id -- back in the closet! Angry not-id -- front and center!
Wait! What? Would someone please tell me when the last time a conservative was assaulted or murdered for being a conservative? When was the last time someone was harassed to the point of committing suicide because he was a conservative?
However, the anti V-day campaign doesn't seem to be a joke. I'm not the biggest proponent of the Vagina Monologues that you'll ever meet. I'm too inclined to wanting to completely dissolve the coherence of the categories of man and woman. There are several monologues in the play that I don't personally identify with, and at least one that actually makes me feel queasy. If someone asked me what my vagina would wear, I would likely look at them askance, explain the difficulties of designing clothing for vaginas, and finish up with murmuring something about how weirded out I am by female condoms (note: I'm no more opposed to female condoms than I am to tampons, but both weird me out for reasons unknown to my conscious mind). And I'm not head over heels in love with the treatment of gender in the play. I'm extremely sad that this year's performance at Rhodes was not inclusive of transwomen (it has been at least once in the past.)
However, I heartily support the main idea -- THERE IS NOTHING SHAMEFUL ABOUT BEING EMBODIED WITH A VAGINA. Oh, and you get to decide upon the meaning and value of that vagina and the rest of your body for yourself.
Madness, ain't it? It could even be hysterical! But least I be told that I am missing something -- here's a closer analysis of the brochure, The Vagina Monologues: Exposed!
Violence against Cupid?
Do the Vagina Monologues Objectify Women?
But in reality, that's the problem that this organization has with the Monologues -- it's a bunch of women defining their own sexuality, and god knows, god's agin' that! Really, while the difference in age between the participants in "The Little Coochie Snoocher that Could" is waved a banner for why the Monologues are evil -- the real problem seems to be with the idea that women can be sexually fulfilled without men. Separate from the more legitimate critique of the age difference we get this gem:
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering -- it appears that any expression of sexuality other than penis in vagina is perverted. Including Bob's love of looking at vaginas.
(Found the actual organization via Feministing. Encountered the logic in a editorial in the student paper at my college last year, was hoping against hope that it was an independent operative.)
Angry id -- back in the closet! Angry not-id -- front and center!
Wait! What? Would someone please tell me when the last time a conservative was assaulted or murdered for being a conservative? When was the last time someone was harassed to the point of committing suicide because he was a conservative?
However, the anti V-day campaign doesn't seem to be a joke. I'm not the biggest proponent of the Vagina Monologues that you'll ever meet. I'm too inclined to wanting to completely dissolve the coherence of the categories of man and woman. There are several monologues in the play that I don't personally identify with, and at least one that actually makes me feel queasy. If someone asked me what my vagina would wear, I would likely look at them askance, explain the difficulties of designing clothing for vaginas, and finish up with murmuring something about how weirded out I am by female condoms (note: I'm no more opposed to female condoms than I am to tampons, but both weird me out for reasons unknown to my conscious mind). And I'm not head over heels in love with the treatment of gender in the play. I'm extremely sad that this year's performance at Rhodes was not inclusive of transwomen (it has been at least once in the past.)
However, I heartily support the main idea -- THERE IS NOTHING SHAMEFUL ABOUT BEING EMBODIED WITH A VAGINA. Oh, and you get to decide upon the meaning and value of that vagina and the rest of your body for yourself.
Madness, ain't it? It could even be hysterical! But least I be told that I am missing something -- here's a closer analysis of the brochure, The Vagina Monologues: Exposed!
Violence against Cupid?
In their effort to redefine a day meant to celebrate love and romance, Ensler and her “Vagina Warriors” proclaimed Valentine’s Day as “V-Day” until the violence against women stops, and then it will become “Victory Day” (Ensler 173). So long, Cupid. (page 13)OMG! They killed Cupid! Because it's so terribly empowering to have bad chocolates (or maybe good chocolates) showered upon one. Terribly empowering to have a day dedicated to social pressure to mate and then reproduce. Actually, I'm detecting a capitalist/consumerist concern here. We have to have this excuse to consume, consume, consume -- and yes, it's just a subtext but I do believe that it's here.
Do the Vagina Monologues Objectify Women?
It perpetuates the very attitude that often leads to sexual violence: treating women as objects. (page 24)Dear person writing this brochure -- are you familiar with the use of subject and object? Defining myself, defining the meaning of my own body rather than letting society dictate that meaning to me is being a subject. Do the Monologues threaten at times to create a new hegemonic "we" of women's experience? In some ways -- yes -- but the format of the play -- a diverse collection of voices, offering a multiplicity of ways of relating to vaginas -- is itself in tension with that possibility. The Vagina Monologues are about allowing women to be the subjects of their own sexuality. It's when the meaning of vagina possession is imposed from without that we have objectification.
But in reality, that's the problem that this organization has with the Monologues -- it's a bunch of women defining their own sexuality, and god knows, god's agin' that! Really, while the difference in age between the participants in "The Little Coochie Snoocher that Could" is waved a banner for why the Monologues are evil -- the real problem seems to be with the idea that women can be sexually fulfilled without men. Separate from the more legitimate critique of the age difference we get this gem:
The girl also reveals her seducer’s ultimate lesson. “She tells me to always know how to give myself pleasure so I’ll never need to rely on a man” (Ensler 82).Given that this is used as punctuation for that segment, it seems that the composer of this brochure is more concerned that women might not be relying on men more of a problem than a possibly exploitative situation. The professed concern for the sixteen year old girl is just a smokescreen. Of course, conservatives do tend to let their anxieties about maintaining the normalcy of man-on-top-woman-on-bottom sexuality override any concern for the exploitation of women's bodies (please, see anti-gay interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah).
(page 11)
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering -- it appears that any expression of sexuality other than penis in vagina is perverted. Including Bob's love of looking at vaginas.
(Found the actual organization via Feministing. Encountered the logic in a editorial in the student paper at my college last year, was hoping against hope that it was an independent operative.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
