Great article by Meghan Murphy arguing that gender, particularly the prevalence of male privilege embedded in our patriarchal society and the negative aspects of socially-constructed, male gender norms (what some call 'toxic masculinity'), needs to be a part of the gun debate and any discussion about mass shootings in American society:
But what about the men? On masculinity and mass shootings
Unfortunately, the existence of social gender hierarchy itself is something that's difficult for many of us to see, especially white, heterosexual males since were often not aware of the relative level of privilege we enjoy within American society, primarily because it manifests itself as a lack of discrimination that isn't always readily apparent until we take a broader look at American society as a whole, or the historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm this country was founded upon, which from the start was created by, and mainly for, white, heterosexual, Christian, male property owners. And while there's certainly been progress towards a more egalitarian society, the structural roots of social inequalities that create hierarchies of privilege are still buried deep within the makeup of our society and culture, hidden in plain sight.
Whether you agree with the idea or not, I think the article is worth reading and thinking about.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
dear god, your memes are lame
As has become popular, people are posting the 'things like this happen because we've kicked God out of x' meme. One popular version is in the form of a letter:
To be honest, the whole 'I'm not allowed in schools anymore so kids will get shot' meme really, really pisses me off. It's so absurd that it's hard for me to create a rational argument against it. For one, this kind of thing has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with the things mentally unstable and/or distraught individuals are capable of. Beyond that, however, God (if you believe in such things) isn't limited by human policies and institutions (as if the state has the power to remove the presence of God from specific areas of civil society).
If God exists, God is everywhere and could theoretically stop anybody from doing anything by nature of being God. If God doesn't, it's because God chooses not to. It's kind of a funny argument when you think about it because, if it were true, it seems like when people who ask God to be in their lives ask God not to do something, like not let them die from a painful disease or a terrible disaster, for example, God often doesn't seem to listen; but when people tell God to stay out of schools, God apparently listens and GTFO for some reason. Why is that exactly? It doesn't make for a very nice sounding God, in my opinion.
As for public school themselves, they're places for kids to learn about English, history, math, science, etc., not to be indoctrinated by religion—that's what places like church and Catholic schools are for.
I wish this fucking meme would die already.
Dear God,
Why is there so much violence in schools?
- A Concerned Student
...
Dear Concerned Student,
I'm not allowed in school.
- God
To be honest, the whole 'I'm not allowed in schools anymore so kids will get shot' meme really, really pisses me off. It's so absurd that it's hard for me to create a rational argument against it. For one, this kind of thing has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with the things mentally unstable and/or distraught individuals are capable of. Beyond that, however, God (if you believe in such things) isn't limited by human policies and institutions (as if the state has the power to remove the presence of God from specific areas of civil society).
If God exists, God is everywhere and could theoretically stop anybody from doing anything by nature of being God. If God doesn't, it's because God chooses not to. It's kind of a funny argument when you think about it because, if it were true, it seems like when people who ask God to be in their lives ask God not to do something, like not let them die from a painful disease or a terrible disaster, for example, God often doesn't seem to listen; but when people tell God to stay out of schools, God apparently listens and GTFO for some reason. Why is that exactly? It doesn't make for a very nice sounding God, in my opinion.
As for public school themselves, they're places for kids to learn about English, history, math, science, etc., not to be indoctrinated by religion—that's what places like church and Catholic schools are for.
I wish this fucking meme would die already.
Friday, December 14, 2012
bumper-sticker propaganda
A friend of mine was driving to work today when they saw a pickup/SUV crossover with a bumper sticker that said "Fuck Your Prius!" They said, "I get that many people are gratified by driving large vehicles, even though I don't get it. But how do you spite fuel economy?" That's a good question. What contributes to the mentality of people who actively scoff at something that's come to represent things like fuel efficiency and trying to lesson our impact on the environment, and who are vocal about wanting big gas-guzzlers over more economical and environmentally friendly alternatives? Why spite something like fuel economy when oil causes us so many political problems, and automobiles in the US account for nearly half of the greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles globally?
In my opinion, it's due in part to an ideology that holds consumerism and individualism sacrosanct — an ideology that's been fed to us for generations from all directions — and the idea that we consciously consider how our actions affect society (i.e., the dreaded 'collective') is entirely anathema to this. It's the Other, the boogeyman, the things we've been taught since children to fear and fight against even though it often doesn't make any logical sense to do so. Part of this is because it's what drives our economy. It's the ideology of consumption, growth, and private ownership—the ideology of capitalism. It's the same reason we have a society where many people are coaxed into thinking it's better to buy their own car than fight for more efficient and comprehensive public transit systems, that it's their right even. It's why many chose to turn a blind eye to global climate change, or deny it completely, instead of fighting for more alternative energy research and forcing large corporations to limit their greenhouse emissions.
Or maybe not. It's something to think about, at any rate.
In my opinion, it's due in part to an ideology that holds consumerism and individualism sacrosanct — an ideology that's been fed to us for generations from all directions — and the idea that we consciously consider how our actions affect society (i.e., the dreaded 'collective') is entirely anathema to this. It's the Other, the boogeyman, the things we've been taught since children to fear and fight against even though it often doesn't make any logical sense to do so. Part of this is because it's what drives our economy. It's the ideology of consumption, growth, and private ownership—the ideology of capitalism. It's the same reason we have a society where many people are coaxed into thinking it's better to buy their own car than fight for more efficient and comprehensive public transit systems, that it's their right even. It's why many chose to turn a blind eye to global climate change, or deny it completely, instead of fighting for more alternative energy research and forcing large corporations to limit their greenhouse emissions.
Or maybe not. It's something to think about, at any rate.
gun violence: a symptom of a larger disease?
Jesus. Apparently there was a shooting an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, today where at least twenty six people were killed, eighteen of them children. Just three days ago, a guy walked into one of our local malls and started shooting, killing two people and seriously injuring another before turning the gun on himself. It's pretty fucked up, especially considering the recent shootings at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and a theatre in Colorado were only a few short months ago.
I know some will say that if more people were armed and able to defend themselves (as well as others), things like this would happen less and/or would be more easily prevented by armed citizens. But the statistics seem to show the opposite to be true, e.g., a study done at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that "states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide," while data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership per capita of any nation, yet also has a higher rate of gun violence resulting in death than any other developed country.
The way I see it, there's no easy solution, really. A combination of things like better funded and easily accessible mental healthcare, stricter gun control laws, and gun safety programs may help to reduce incidents like this, but they'll never be able to completely stop them. Part of this is because the roots of much of this kind of violence within society goes much, much deeper than crazy people or prevalence of guns, and they won't be uprooted until we take a long, hard look at the society of fear and violence we've created, or that we've allowed to be created for us—a society where things like a basic guaranteed income and universal healthcare (including better funding of, and easier access to, mental healthcare) are fought against tooth and nail, and starting wars in the name of peace and dropping bombs that routinely kill innocent civilians seems as easy as buying a gun at Walmart.
As a friend of mine put it on Facebook in response to the news, "No amount of gun control will do anything but make the problem worse until we change the culture. The United States has been in a perpetual state of violent war, both domestic and abroad, since it was founded." Which reminded me of something Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a speech he gave in 1967, called "Beyond Vietnam," that seems as relevant today as it did then:
As well as a similar, and perhaps even more directly relevant, line from a eulogy he gave in 1963 for four young girls who were killed when members of the Ku Klux Klan bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama:
Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, these deaths are just a drop in the bucket. According to the US Census Bureau, approximately 150,000+ people, including children, die every day all over the world for a variety of reasons, from wars, accidents, and random acts of violence by poor, opportunistic, sadistic, or mental unstable and distraught individuals, to more easily preventable things like starvation, lack of clean drinking water and access to basic healthcare. In essence, it's partially a structural problem, and that aspect is something that'll take a long time to work out, especially when taking a broader look at human progress and seeing the cycle of revolutionary and reactionary ways we change and deal with the dialectical processes of history. The more consciously we do this, and the less reactionary we are in the process, however, the better and quicker I think our evolution towards a more cohesive and peaceful society will be.
It's sad that this happened, and I really hate hearing about things like this. So I'll continue to support things like universal healthcare in the short term, and fight for a healthier and less volatile society via progressive socio-economic changes in the long term. Beyond that, though, I don't know what else I can do. And yes, I'm politicizing this issue because the way I see it, it is a political issue.
I know some will say that if more people were armed and able to defend themselves (as well as others), things like this would happen less and/or would be more easily prevented by armed citizens. But the statistics seem to show the opposite to be true, e.g., a study done at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that "states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide," while data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership per capita of any nation, yet also has a higher rate of gun violence resulting in death than any other developed country.
The way I see it, there's no easy solution, really. A combination of things like better funded and easily accessible mental healthcare, stricter gun control laws, and gun safety programs may help to reduce incidents like this, but they'll never be able to completely stop them. Part of this is because the roots of much of this kind of violence within society goes much, much deeper than crazy people or prevalence of guns, and they won't be uprooted until we take a long, hard look at the society of fear and violence we've created, or that we've allowed to be created for us—a society where things like a basic guaranteed income and universal healthcare (including better funding of, and easier access to, mental healthcare) are fought against tooth and nail, and starting wars in the name of peace and dropping bombs that routinely kill innocent civilians seems as easy as buying a gun at Walmart.
As a friend of mine put it on Facebook in response to the news, "No amount of gun control will do anything but make the problem worse until we change the culture. The United States has been in a perpetual state of violent war, both domestic and abroad, since it was founded." Which reminded me of something Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a speech he gave in 1967, called "Beyond Vietnam," that seems as relevant today as it did then:
My third reason [for speaking out against the Vietnam War] moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
As well as a similar, and perhaps even more directly relevant, line from a eulogy he gave in 1963 for four young girls who were killed when members of the Ku Klux Klan bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama:
They say to us that we must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American dream.
Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, these deaths are just a drop in the bucket. According to the US Census Bureau, approximately 150,000+ people, including children, die every day all over the world for a variety of reasons, from wars, accidents, and random acts of violence by poor, opportunistic, sadistic, or mental unstable and distraught individuals, to more easily preventable things like starvation, lack of clean drinking water and access to basic healthcare. In essence, it's partially a structural problem, and that aspect is something that'll take a long time to work out, especially when taking a broader look at human progress and seeing the cycle of revolutionary and reactionary ways we change and deal with the dialectical processes of history. The more consciously we do this, and the less reactionary we are in the process, however, the better and quicker I think our evolution towards a more cohesive and peaceful society will be.
It's sad that this happened, and I really hate hearing about things like this. So I'll continue to support things like universal healthcare in the short term, and fight for a healthier and less volatile society via progressive socio-economic changes in the long term. Beyond that, though, I don't know what else I can do. And yes, I'm politicizing this issue because the way I see it, it is a political issue.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
rtw legislation a raw deal for michigan
Michigan just got a raw deal with the signing of two bills "sharply limiting labor rights." This is exactly the opposite of what we, while coming out of a severe recession, should be doing to move forward, in my opinion. If anything, we should be trying to repeal things like the anti-union Taft–Hartley Act, not utilizing it to pass even more laws limiting labour rights that ultimately serve to weaken already beleaguered unions and drive down wages, e.g., according to the Economic Policy Institute, wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states.
Even from the point of view of capital, it's counterproductive. Workers are consumers, and if workers get paid less, they have less with which to consume. Less consumption means less demand, which translates into less growth (and that's bad for capitalism). The small advantage capital and employers will get by restricting the ability of unions to collect fees from employees who benefit from union-negotiated contracts and prohibiting closed shops (i.e., places requiring employees at unionized workplaces to be members of the union as a condition of employment) will ultimately turn around and bite them in the ass, although it'll be the working class that suffers the most as usual.
What we really need, however, is more militant and radicalized unions that are not only more focused on organizing and agitating workers than simply acting as a mediator between capital and labour that negotiates contracts, but that are also willing to continuously fight for their demands, striking if need be and agreeing to return to work only when their demands are met. Until then, unions will not only continue to decline while losing battle after battle, but they’ll find themselves completely irrelevant since it’s their role as an organized and unbending challenge to capital that they’re truly useful to the working class.
Even from the point of view of capital, it's counterproductive. Workers are consumers, and if workers get paid less, they have less with which to consume. Less consumption means less demand, which translates into less growth (and that's bad for capitalism). The small advantage capital and employers will get by restricting the ability of unions to collect fees from employees who benefit from union-negotiated contracts and prohibiting closed shops (i.e., places requiring employees at unionized workplaces to be members of the union as a condition of employment) will ultimately turn around and bite them in the ass, although it'll be the working class that suffers the most as usual.
What we really need, however, is more militant and radicalized unions that are not only more focused on organizing and agitating workers than simply acting as a mediator between capital and labour that negotiates contracts, but that are also willing to continuously fight for their demands, striking if need be and agreeing to return to work only when their demands are met. Until then, unions will not only continue to decline while losing battle after battle, but they’ll find themselves completely irrelevant since it’s their role as an organized and unbending challenge to capital that they’re truly useful to the working class.
the absurdity of scalia's defense of anti-sodomy laws
For US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the Constitution is dead yet flexible, kind of like his arguments and use of logic when it comes to defending his comparison of laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder:
Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay
When Duncan Hosie, a gay student, questioned Scalia's defense of laws banning sodomy by comparing them to laws barring bestiality and murder, Scalia replied, "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd' ... If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" (One could just as easily have retorted, "It's a logical fallacy that I thought you would have known, which is called false equivalency.") Unsurprisingly (except to Scalia), Hosie wasn't convinced by Scalia's dead-yet-flexible anti-gayideology logic.
Somehow Scalia is not only able to 'draw parallels' between laws banning a consensual, sexual act between individuals that doesn't harm anyone (sodomy) and laws banning a violent act that ends the life of another (murder) in his use of reductio ad absurdum, but he also manages to completely ignore the fact that this very same argument was once used to support the legality of laws banning interracial marriages (i.e., If we can't have moral feelings against or objections to interracial marriages, can we have it against anything?). It didn't hold up to scrutiny then, and it sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to remain unchallenged now.
Another consequence of his argument, which I sincerely doubt Scalia bothered to consider, is that a prudish enough society could just as easily decide that all forms of sexual intercourse should be banned, promoting celibacy instead. And by his logical, society should have that ability too, even though its absurdity should clearly illustrate why this kind of logic is flawed. They way I see, this kind of argument comes more from a place of privilege and discrimination than anything else. For Scalia, the morality and legality of heterosexual sex (and marriage) is never questioned, and he obviously doesn't believe the reverse of his argument is possible (i.e., a legal challenge to vaginal sex), therefore it's not even a consideration while he attempts to support his views on anti-sodomy laws.
I say good on Hosie for not being persuaded by such a lackluster argument.
Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay
When Duncan Hosie, a gay student, questioned Scalia's defense of laws banning sodomy by comparing them to laws barring bestiality and murder, Scalia replied, "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd' ... If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" (One could just as easily have retorted, "It's a logical fallacy that I thought you would have known, which is called false equivalency.") Unsurprisingly (except to Scalia), Hosie wasn't convinced by Scalia's dead-yet-flexible anti-gay
Somehow Scalia is not only able to 'draw parallels' between laws banning a consensual, sexual act between individuals that doesn't harm anyone (sodomy) and laws banning a violent act that ends the life of another (murder) in his use of reductio ad absurdum, but he also manages to completely ignore the fact that this very same argument was once used to support the legality of laws banning interracial marriages (i.e., If we can't have moral feelings against or objections to interracial marriages, can we have it against anything?). It didn't hold up to scrutiny then, and it sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to remain unchallenged now.
Another consequence of his argument, which I sincerely doubt Scalia bothered to consider, is that a prudish enough society could just as easily decide that all forms of sexual intercourse should be banned, promoting celibacy instead. And by his logical, society should have that ability too, even though its absurdity should clearly illustrate why this kind of logic is flawed. They way I see, this kind of argument comes more from a place of privilege and discrimination than anything else. For Scalia, the morality and legality of heterosexual sex (and marriage) is never questioned, and he obviously doesn't believe the reverse of his argument is possible (i.e., a legal challenge to vaginal sex), therefore it's not even a consideration while he attempts to support his views on anti-sodomy laws.
I say good on Hosie for not being persuaded by such a lackluster argument.
Monday, December 10, 2012
noble friendship
This past weekend, I attended another meditation retreat at Wat Atam. This time, however, the retreat was led by Sakula (Mary Reinard), the spiritual director and teacher of Portland Friends of the Dhamma. The retreat itself was relatively similar to the one I attended at the end of September, but it was unique for me in that it was the first retreat I've been to that's been led by a lay teacher instead of a monastic. It was also special in that it was the first retreat Sakula herself has led, and it was nice to be a part of that, especially because this particular retreat has helped to form a relationship between the communities of Wat Atam and Portland Friends of the Dhamma.
While Ajahn Ritthi, the abbot of Wat Atam, gave a couple of Dhamma talks during the retreat, Sakula ran the show, and this retreat was as fruitful for me as the previous one. Sakula is an experienced meditator who's led Portland Friends of the Dhamma for a number of years, and I think that experience served all of the retreatants well. She created an atmosphere conducive to practicing meditation, and gave guidance that was simultaneously encouraging, gentle, strict, and applicable to all types of meditators. Some, for example, really benefited from her talks on having a friendly attitude towards ourselves and how that can impact our practice and those around us, while others (like myself) benefited from her suggestions to hold our posture as long as possible and resist the mind's tendency to exaggerate and proliferate around painful sensations.
Being a somewhat regular member of Portland Friends of the Dhamma myself (I usually try to make it to the Friday night meditation session and Dhamma talk), I was happy to see that Ajahn Ritthi and the organizers of the retreat were impressed with the retreat and the conduct of the retreatants, many of which were also from Portland Friends of the Dhamma. Ajahn Ritthi said that it's not just the job of monastics to teach the Dhamma, that it's also the duty of lay followers to teach, and that he and Sakula were relatives in the Dhamma. It's that kind of sentiment that I think will help further strengthen the growth of lay groups like Portland Friends of the Dhamma, as well as help breakdown the resistance of some to seeing lay teachers as legitimate Dhamma teachers.
In short, the retreat was a success on many levels, and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to attend. It was the first retreat led by Sakula and another step forward in her evolution as a Dhamma teacher. It acted as a bridge, connecting two Buddhist communities in the Pacific Northwest together and helping open up new opportunities for Portland Friends of the Dhamma by expanding their presence and giving them a well-organized venue for Sakula to possibly teach more retreats in the future. And on a personal level, it was successful in helping me learn more about what I need to do in order to improve my meditation practice while bringing me closer to the Portland Friends of the Dhamma community.
While Ajahn Ritthi, the abbot of Wat Atam, gave a couple of Dhamma talks during the retreat, Sakula ran the show, and this retreat was as fruitful for me as the previous one. Sakula is an experienced meditator who's led Portland Friends of the Dhamma for a number of years, and I think that experience served all of the retreatants well. She created an atmosphere conducive to practicing meditation, and gave guidance that was simultaneously encouraging, gentle, strict, and applicable to all types of meditators. Some, for example, really benefited from her talks on having a friendly attitude towards ourselves and how that can impact our practice and those around us, while others (like myself) benefited from her suggestions to hold our posture as long as possible and resist the mind's tendency to exaggerate and proliferate around painful sensations.
Being a somewhat regular member of Portland Friends of the Dhamma myself (I usually try to make it to the Friday night meditation session and Dhamma talk), I was happy to see that Ajahn Ritthi and the organizers of the retreat were impressed with the retreat and the conduct of the retreatants, many of which were also from Portland Friends of the Dhamma. Ajahn Ritthi said that it's not just the job of monastics to teach the Dhamma, that it's also the duty of lay followers to teach, and that he and Sakula were relatives in the Dhamma. It's that kind of sentiment that I think will help further strengthen the growth of lay groups like Portland Friends of the Dhamma, as well as help breakdown the resistance of some to seeing lay teachers as legitimate Dhamma teachers.
In short, the retreat was a success on many levels, and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to attend. It was the first retreat led by Sakula and another step forward in her evolution as a Dhamma teacher. It acted as a bridge, connecting two Buddhist communities in the Pacific Northwest together and helping open up new opportunities for Portland Friends of the Dhamma by expanding their presence and giving them a well-organized venue for Sakula to possibly teach more retreats in the future. And on a personal level, it was successful in helping me learn more about what I need to do in order to improve my meditation practice while bringing me closer to the Portland Friends of the Dhamma community.
Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. (SN 45.2)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)