That means I want to write and I have nothing to rant about. Pity me.
I'm just wondering how the word emo can apply to absolutely incredible bands like Indian Summer or Funeral Diner, and yet also apply to such terrible, bland bands as Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco, or Dashboard Confessional, or Saves the Day (does anyone listen to them anymore?), or countless other bands that have absolutely no musical similarities with the aforementioned bands. I'm not just saying that because the former are excellent and the latter are terrible (which is true), I'm not saying this as a way of saying "I can't believe there can be such crap in a genre with such good bands," I'm saying this because they actually are very different styles of music, and I can't believe these terrible bands could hijack the name of a perfectly good genre of music and take it as their own.
I like emo, I love it in fact, but I don't want anyone to misrepresent that and think that I like "emo," which I loathe.
Never before in the history of mankind has a single word described such polar opposites.
I guess I did have something to rant about.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Liberals: Unpatriotic?
I wrote an entire rant here but I deleted it because I didn't think it got my point across, it was just a rant and nothing else. Why is there such a strong perception in the American right that the left is somehow unpatriotic?
America is a melting pot, it's been that way since the very beginning, a nation of immigrants. Yet somehow people who object to bigotry on racial, religious, or sexual grounds are deemed unpatriotic.
The first amendment is a part of our constitution. It is incredibly clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And yet, people who don't think that America should be governed by Christian standards are unpatriotic, because the country was founded by Christians, yadda yadda yadda...Jefferson modified his Bible to remove the parts he didn't agree with, he and Franklin were deists, who would be considered highly heretical by most Christians, especially the kind who make this argument. To say this country was founded on the Ten Commandments is stupid: adultery is not illegal, nor is blasphemy, nor disobedient children, nor idolatry...the constitution protects people from harming each other, and its similarities with Christian morality begin and end there.
The point is that laws cannot be made to respect or prohibit religion. Making a law on religious grounds is against the constitution and unpatriotic. Beyond that, is that what we, as Christians, really want? Our we so insecure in our own religion that we want the government to force people to follow some of our tenets? We love to talk about oppression, but is saying that the government cannot officially endorse us, or any other religions, really oppression? We must be in a pretty good position if the worst thing that we can come up with is a lack of affirmation from a government that is sworn, in its very constitution, to abstain from doing that.
And yet, people who try to enforce this are somehow unpatriotic. People who object to our government and government-funded facilities directly endorsing, say, Christianity (read: the ACLU) are unpatriotic heathen fascists.
Somehow insisting that we treat people equally, regardless of country of origin, or religion, or sexual orientation, is unpatriotic. It's unpatriotic to object to calling Arabs towelheads. It's unpatriotic to object to the torture of inmates. It's unpatriotic to support the Equal Rights Amendment. It's unpatriotic to be a feminist.
On that topic: Feminists don't hate men. "Feminazis", with a few exceptions, do not exist. They are a strawman by the right to mischaracterize the feminist movement and evoke hatred from people who have no other knowledge of it. Feminists, by and large, do not hate men for being male, do not believe that all sex is rape, do not think that women are superior to men. There may exist feminists that believe some of these things, but those beliefs are not a component of their feminism.
Feminism is this: there is sexism in our country. Looking at the wage gap, this is undeniable. Looking at how masculinity is associated with power, and how femininity is associated with daintiness, this is undeniable. Looking at the stereotypes of women as incapable of scientific and mathematical (logical) endeavours, this is undeniable. Need I go on? Feminism does not believe men are inherently bad, or women are inherently good, because feminism contends that there are no inherent mental differences between men and women, and that masculinity and femininity are socially imposed. Looking at the differences in perception of masculinity and femininity throughout history, and between societies, this isn't hard to believe. Feminism is saying, look, the traditional roles of masculinity and femininity are damaging to women because they make men out as natural leaders, and so women out as naturally submissive, which limits their ability to act autonomy, because society expects them to behave in certain submissive ways.
So, feminism says, look, forget the stereotypes, do away with them, let people be who they want, quit characterizing women as bimbos and weaklings, there's been progress but the stereotypes are still far from gone. And, yes, feminists accept that sexual stereotypes hurt both men and women, the focus is on women because they are the underrepresented group, they are the group that suffers from stereotypes that repress their autonomy.
Most rape, by far, is committed and attempted by men. What is more sexist: to assume that there is something inherent in men that makes them rape more, or to assume that the problem is in the stereotypes our culture imposes on them (men = dominant, powerful, women = weak, submissive).
Feminism is saying that stereotypes hurt everyone, and account for the misrepresentation of women in government and positions of power, and should be abolished. How is this unpatriotic?
And I've gotten so far on that tangent, I'm not sure how to wrap this up nicely. I'll just ask, how is limiting personal freedom, and the ability for one to work on an even playing field regardless of sex or race, unpatriotic, especially in a country that prides itself on limitless opportunities for all people, and immense individual freedoms?
Being complacent with racial, sexual, and religious inequality, that's what's unpatriotic.
America is a melting pot, it's been that way since the very beginning, a nation of immigrants. Yet somehow people who object to bigotry on racial, religious, or sexual grounds are deemed unpatriotic.
The first amendment is a part of our constitution. It is incredibly clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And yet, people who don't think that America should be governed by Christian standards are unpatriotic, because the country was founded by Christians, yadda yadda yadda...Jefferson modified his Bible to remove the parts he didn't agree with, he and Franklin were deists, who would be considered highly heretical by most Christians, especially the kind who make this argument. To say this country was founded on the Ten Commandments is stupid: adultery is not illegal, nor is blasphemy, nor disobedient children, nor idolatry...the constitution protects people from harming each other, and its similarities with Christian morality begin and end there.
The point is that laws cannot be made to respect or prohibit religion. Making a law on religious grounds is against the constitution and unpatriotic. Beyond that, is that what we, as Christians, really want? Our we so insecure in our own religion that we want the government to force people to follow some of our tenets? We love to talk about oppression, but is saying that the government cannot officially endorse us, or any other religions, really oppression? We must be in a pretty good position if the worst thing that we can come up with is a lack of affirmation from a government that is sworn, in its very constitution, to abstain from doing that.
And yet, people who try to enforce this are somehow unpatriotic. People who object to our government and government-funded facilities directly endorsing, say, Christianity (read: the ACLU) are unpatriotic heathen fascists.
Somehow insisting that we treat people equally, regardless of country of origin, or religion, or sexual orientation, is unpatriotic. It's unpatriotic to object to calling Arabs towelheads. It's unpatriotic to object to the torture of inmates. It's unpatriotic to support the Equal Rights Amendment. It's unpatriotic to be a feminist.
On that topic: Feminists don't hate men. "Feminazis", with a few exceptions, do not exist. They are a strawman by the right to mischaracterize the feminist movement and evoke hatred from people who have no other knowledge of it. Feminists, by and large, do not hate men for being male, do not believe that all sex is rape, do not think that women are superior to men. There may exist feminists that believe some of these things, but those beliefs are not a component of their feminism.
Feminism is this: there is sexism in our country. Looking at the wage gap, this is undeniable. Looking at how masculinity is associated with power, and how femininity is associated with daintiness, this is undeniable. Looking at the stereotypes of women as incapable of scientific and mathematical (logical) endeavours, this is undeniable. Need I go on? Feminism does not believe men are inherently bad, or women are inherently good, because feminism contends that there are no inherent mental differences between men and women, and that masculinity and femininity are socially imposed. Looking at the differences in perception of masculinity and femininity throughout history, and between societies, this isn't hard to believe. Feminism is saying, look, the traditional roles of masculinity and femininity are damaging to women because they make men out as natural leaders, and so women out as naturally submissive, which limits their ability to act autonomy, because society expects them to behave in certain submissive ways.
So, feminism says, look, forget the stereotypes, do away with them, let people be who they want, quit characterizing women as bimbos and weaklings, there's been progress but the stereotypes are still far from gone. And, yes, feminists accept that sexual stereotypes hurt both men and women, the focus is on women because they are the underrepresented group, they are the group that suffers from stereotypes that repress their autonomy.
Most rape, by far, is committed and attempted by men. What is more sexist: to assume that there is something inherent in men that makes them rape more, or to assume that the problem is in the stereotypes our culture imposes on them (men = dominant, powerful, women = weak, submissive).
Feminism is saying that stereotypes hurt everyone, and account for the misrepresentation of women in government and positions of power, and should be abolished. How is this unpatriotic?
And I've gotten so far on that tangent, I'm not sure how to wrap this up nicely. I'll just ask, how is limiting personal freedom, and the ability for one to work on an even playing field regardless of sex or race, unpatriotic, especially in a country that prides itself on limitless opportunities for all people, and immense individual freedoms?
Being complacent with racial, sexual, and religious inequality, that's what's unpatriotic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
