On Omnipotence and Omniscience, Or a Response to The Prophecy I &II

Well, sure. This is pretty fluffy too. But what the hey- fluffy is good, right?

I just watched the movies The Prophecy and the Prophecy II, and aside from strengthening my conviction that Christopher Walken is the creepiest guy ever (in a good way, mind you), these movies got me asking some questions. Here is a brief synopsis of the movie(s) if you are unfamiliar with them.

1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, how could a "war in heaven" ever happen, unless God wanted it to happen? Sure, yeah- the movies are 100% made up bunk, but there are people who believe that "Lucifer" was an angel who was cast out of heaven because he fomented an uprising against God. So the question stands.

2. Are angels corporeal beings? Beings of spirit?

3.Why would God "need" angels to do anything for God? Re: omnipotence and omniscience.

4. If angels have no "souls", but obviously have a measure of free will, what is a "soul" anyway?

5.When an angel "dies", where does it go?

6. Where did angels get the reputation of being "good"? If they do God's bidding, they are really just neutral actors. The one recorded instance of an angel acting on his own will gives us a version of the "creation of Hell" story.

The movies, of course, never really answer any of these questions. Nothing else answers them very clearly, either. All of these questions could be as easily applied to other religious ideas. Omnipotence and omniscience are particularly problematic- really, you could substitute about anything unsavory for "war in heaven" and really have the same outcome. Why is there war,famine, plague, teabaggers (sorry-had to put that in there), etc? If God knows/controls all, why the bad stuff? A lot of people answer with the old, "God's will is inscrutable" stuff, but that holds no water with me. I could almost buy it if it wasn't for this nagging conscience thing we have that makes us see things as "good" or "bad" instead of all just "God's will". Why make us like that? Why make us agonize over things, when we just as easily could have been programmed to respond with indifference? Unless, of course, God isn't benevolent, but is omnipotent and omniscient...

That's the answer I always arrive at. If I believe God exists, and is omniscient and omnipotent, I also have to believe God is malevolent, or best-case, neutral. Otherwise, I've got to conclude there is no God, or that God has limits, and can't make all of the bad stuff go away. Which isn't really what the movies were trying to get at, I suspect, but nevertheless, they make a good case for one of these answers.

The whole thing is such a house of cards. Of course, it doesn't help that I am skeptical by nature, but sheesh. How could anyone be all right with these internal contradictions? It was hard enough just suspending disbelief long enough to watch the movies. I can't imagine how hard it would be to suspend disbelief long enough to live by this stuff.

It's Been a While- Random Stuff Roundup

Yeah, I know. Seven months. That's a long time. I've been busy. Besides, I'm sure all three of you have found other amusements on the web. What has been inspiring me lately? Here's the list:

Retro Renovation

I love 20th century history- its one of my passions. I stumbled across the following website a while back, and I can honestly say I'm in love.

http://retrorenovation.com/

Save The Pink Bathrooms

A sister project from the folks at Retro Renovation, I love looking through the bathroom pics. I can't wait to upload the pic of my gram's sweet 1960's upstairs pink bathroom.

http://savethepinkbathrooms.com/

Marina Style Safeway Stores

Again, a tangent off of my 20th century love-a-thon. I've always liked those swoopy 60's rooflines. Now, I realize I'm not alone. We've got an old Marina Safeway building in our town that's standing vacant. I wonder if it is for sale? Perhaps being a grocer is in the cards for me...

Marina Safeway pic

Japan Cat Network

I love Japan. I love cats. What, then, was not to like in the CatFancy article I read about this awesome organization in Japan that is helping feral cats? I may have to take them up on their offer for the "volunteer vacationer" deal where they find you free accommodations in Japan if you volunteer part time while there.

Japan Cat Network

That's it for the "fluffy stuff". Spring has sprung, and hopefully I'll be lest tired/grouchy/beat down, and more prone to post.

Chris Muir- I Just Don't Get It

Is the funny comic thing SO over, and I just missed the memo? Apparently so. I've been casting about, looking (unsuccessfully) for a funny comic strip to read. Someone on Pandagon had linked to Chris Muir's Day By Day, and even though they had unfavorable things to say about the site, I followed the link. Big mistake.

I just have a few questions.

1. Why are the women always in various states of undress? I'm not just talking scantily clad, I'm talking running around in panties. Are women in panties funnier than fully-clothed women?

2. Why aren't the men in various states of undress? Are fully clothed men funnier, or more ironic?

3. Why do both of the men have skeevy facial hair, and pretty much look like each other, except one is black, and one is white? Is facial hair supposed to be funny? Or cool? I bet C. Muir has facial hair. Any takers?

4. Are the little character bios supposed to be jokes? They are the only funny thing on the site.

"Zed- 45 year old seen-it-all ex military sniper. Not ready for the civilian workforce, he takes on any work that will help his family, daughters Mari and Kiko, and wife Sam."

"Sam- Smoldering redhead who finds herself as a new mom with two daughters at age 39 with her husband Zed. An engineer, she's often in conflict with her overwhelming feminine side."

From this, I can conclude a few things: 1.) Cartoon ex-snipers have more fun than real ex-snipers (I know one. You wouldn't want to write a comic about him. On second thought, maybe you would...) 2.) Chris Muir has never been a woman. Or an engineer. 3.)In an earlier cartoon, he must explain the logic behind Sam the engineer dropping out of the workforce to raise the kids, while the ex sniper who isn't "ready" for civilian jobs takes whatever he can scrounge. I'll bet that explanation has something to do with Sam's "overwhelming" femininity that "compels" her to the mommy track.

5. What's up with "smoldering" Sam and her twin baybees? Why is she always juggling them? They have no point. Kinda like real baybees, only these comic baybees have cool Japanese names. Why are people fascinated with the idea of twins?

6. Chris Muir is a little confused. Check out the 8/29 strip, second panel. http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/29/

Which of these things is not like the other? Oh, yeah. "No Child Left Behind" was a Bush policy, not something concocted by the "liberals". Unlike tofu, of course. Tofu is definitely a liberal plot. But why, then, does Muir have hip ex-sniper Zed and brainy-but-smouldering-and so VERY feminine Sam naming their spawn after...Tofu eaters?! Also, in the 8/19 panel, he has hot-as-hell redhead sexpot Sam breastfeeding one of the twins, but on 8/24, she's bottle feeding. Does she breastfeed one twin, and bottle feed the other? Is this perhaps some cruel experiment? Or maybe Muir doesn't know squat about baybees (or women), and just thinks its hawt to draw women being motherly.

7. Is this a political strip, ala Doonesbury, or a parody of a political strip? I hope it's the later. If it's the former... Read this strip- http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/09/01/ Where is the Republican National Convention again? Oh, yeah. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Wow. Show me the unfunny, Mr. Muir.

I Am A Feminist Because...

I'll see if I can start one of those goofy chain-letter things where people answer a question, then pass it on. I'm talking to you, my big Three Readers!

I am a feminist because...

I think there are plenty of reasons to declare me incompetent that have absolutely nothing to do with what is between my legs. As a matter of fact, I think my genitalia are some of my least offensive features.

What say you?

Entitlement: Political Edition

Today, I saw the story about John Edwards' affair.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/edwards_affair

I can't say I'm surprised, but I CAN say that I'm pissed. And no, I'm not some anti-sex prude. I don't really care who someone has sex with, as long as it is consensual, and doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't a part of a larger betrayal of trust. But when it crosses one of those lines, then yeah, I have a problem with it.

I have an even bigger problem with politicians engaging in stuff like this, because I think it really does show a huge character flaw when someone will willingly lie to, hurt, or exploit a family member.

If Edwards would willingly break his word to Elizabeth, why wouldn't he break his word to the American public?

I am particularly upset by Edwards' own take on the situation:

After the story broke Friday, Edwards released a statement that said, "In
2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was
disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake, and I
told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her
forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did
not tell the public."

He admits this was disloyal to his family AND his core beliefs, yet he did it anyway. He was "honest" with his wife, after the fact, but he elected not to tell the public. Why?

"I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices," he said. "With my family,
I took responsibility for my actions in 2006, and today I take full
responsibility publicly."

Because he was ashamed. Even though he had been disloyal to his core values, and was readying to campaign to be the President, and earlier ran for Vice President, and frequently questioned his opponents' "loyalty" to their "core values". But the public didn't deserve to know about his own disloyalty? And how "honest" has he been about the affair, even when pushed?

Last month, the Enquirer carried another story — the blaring headline
referred to an Edwards "love child" — stating that its reporters had accosted
Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel where he had met with Hunter after her child's
birth. Edwards called it "tabloid trash," but he generally avoided reporters'
inquiries, as did his former top aides.
He said in his statement Friday he
had "used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it," and he
called that "being 99 percent honest."

99 percent honest, eh? I wonder if he would be "99 percent" honest about his campaign funding sources, or if elected, "99 percent" honest about why he called a military strike on another country.

Does that sound familiar at all?

So why would Edwards do this?

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was
special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat
me up feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up
myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to
help my family and others who need my help."

Aw, c'mon, John. I bet I could beat you up more than you've beaten yourself up.

Frankly, I'm not really getting the vibe that John has beaten himself up over this much at all. Why?

In an interview, scheduled to air on ABC News' "Nightline" Friday night,
Edwards said the tabloid was correct when it reported on his meeting with Hunter
at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

That sounds like the act of a guilt-ridden, repentant man, doesn't it?

This just makes me sick. But what makes me sicker is the defense this behavior is getting from people who know a thing or two about the patriarchy, entitlement, and being left to twist in the political wind. This from Amanda Marcotte, over at Pandagon:

Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker,
and so this is officially None Of Our Business, and anyone who dogged him on
this story should be fired on the principle that they don’t know journalism from
rooting around in the trash. Hypocrisy is a story; human weakness is
not.

I’m not going to get on a high horse about his judgment, because
he didn’t get on a high horse with me about mine. That’s all I’m going to
say about that.

Only, of course Edwards HAD been a hypocrite, denouncing Bill Clinton for his sex scandal back in 1999. But that isn't really the point. The point is, yeah, a person's personal life IS a valid story, when that person's deportment in their personal life just seethes with patriarchal entitlement, and he is willing to callously walk over the people beneath him when those people no longer have any particular use for him.

And how did he handle that whole ridiculous screed against Amanda, when she was blogging for him? He should have stood up for her; he should have told the Catholic League and her other detractors that her personal views, while expressed in ways that might have been inappropriate, were hers, and had no bearing on her work for him. He should have defended her, but he didn't. I cannot believe, not for one minute, that he would allow her to be hired to write for his campaign without knowing her personal beliefs on the religion issue. As long as her audacity was working for him, it was fine. When it wasn't... She was of the disposable class, so he let her twist. Just like he let his wife twist.

Edwards, sadly, is not alone. Many, if not most politicians have these feelings of entitlement. Just like John, they start to feel they are "special", and become "egocentric". The privilege they have is unfathomable. They get enmeshed in a win-at-all-costs mentality.

And we let them do it. Every time we give this kind of behavior a pass, we feed the ego machine. I don't want to get into dictating morality, but if a person actively engages in a monogamous relationship, then violates the parameters they themselves set for that relationship, it has wider implications, ethical implications we can't ignore.

And yes, I believe this is a feminist issue. A contractual obligation is no less a contractual obligation because it is made with a woman in the context of a marriage. The old "Boys will be boys" trope has allowed men to skip out of infidelity unscathed for a long time, and women are simply held to a different standard of accountability. The "slut shaming" that goes on with the Lewinskys and the Hunters involved in these high-profile cases does no service to women anywhere. The person primarily responsible for ethical misconduct in an affair is the person who is breaking their vows. Period.

I don't care how "good" Edwards or any other politician is on other issues- when they are guilty of severe ethical misconduct, they need to be called on it. We need to stop enabling bad behavior, and hold politicians to higher ethical standards. We have to make the hard choice to speak out against and vote out politicians who can't be trusted. Why? Well, to sum it up, in Edwards' own words:

"If we want to live in a moral, honest just America and if we want to live
in a moral and just world, we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to
do it."

Tennesee Valley Unitarian Universalist Shooting

I had to spend a couple of days reflecting on this. My first instinct was some sort of angry screed that contained about fifty "fuck yous" hurled in the general direction of the asshole who opened fire, and all those who would support his actions based on the premise that UU's "deserve" horror like this because they aren't a "real" church.

I've calmed down a little. I don't think I'll get to the "fuck yous". But I'm not 100% sure of that. We'll see.

For those who haven't followed the story, a man named Jim D. Adkisson walked into Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church on Sunday and opened fire with a shotgun as approximately 200 people watched a children's theatrical production based on "Annie". At this point, two are dead, and at least five others were seriously wounded. The motive seems to be that Adkisson's ex-wife had been a member of the church at some point, and he knew the church had liberal beliefs. He did not share those beliefs, and thought they were somehow to blame for his recent joblesness and overall condition. The church had also recently put up a banner welcoming gays.

This is the sad cost of America's "culture wars". For years, as a society, we have sat back while a small but vocal group of individuals have screamed about how "liberals" are trying to tear the "righteous" down, how gay rights are really a threat to heterosexuals, and only some churches are "true" churches. We have allowed these people to perpetuate the myth that this is a "Christian nation" founded on the principals they espouse, and that there is no room at the American table for anyone else. We have allowed the rhetoric of contempt for the "other" to reach a fever pitch in areas like the fight against terrorism and immigration. We have allowed them to frame things like the political fight for women's bodily autonomy in moral language, we have allowed them to reintroduce discredited creation myths into science classrooms in order to frame science as some sinister force trying to push out their religion. We have accepted the right of virulent attack groups like the Catholic League to bully and menace people who's only crime is not agreeing with them.

One man took all of this to heart. In his own deluded mind, he bought the rhetoric of the hateful "other". He bought the idea that this is "war". He took his shotgun into a crowded church, and started to shoot at the "enemy".

Adkisson's actions were simply the logical end result of such institutionalized hate.

This is all very personal to me, because I attend a UU church with my 9-year old son. We live in the midwest, and I've often worried that the "civil marriage is a civil right" banner on our building might invite the local knuckle-draggers to vandalize the church. We live in an area filled with people who buy into the culture war venom. Some just kind of accept it on a surface level, but get on with generally sane, decent lives. Others are true believer fanatics. All have the capacity to cause great hurt. It could have easily been my UU church attacked last Sunday.

The culture war needs to end. Now.

Non-Christians are Americans, too. This country was expressly founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. The Enlightenment thinkers who founded this country- Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. were the "liberals" of their time. Many were Unitarians. All of them had a huge problem with tyranny. What the culture warriors do today, they do in their own name, not the name of the founders of this country.

If you think none of this matters very much to you, think again. If you think you are immune because you are a Christian, think again. These people have a very narrow definition of "Christian". If you are reading this blog, I doubt you fit it.

We all have a vested interest in renewing the struggle for religious tolerance. All religions. And no religion. Each should be equally and rigorously protected by a populace who knows the danger of letting a majority steamroller a minority. When blowhard assholes want to inflame the passions of people against a group, we should be there to counteract that. We should be there to stand up and say, "Not on my watch." Actual discussion and debate is great. Everyone deserves to be heard. But like the famous supreme court decision pointed out, no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. No one has the "right" to incite hate and violence against another group.

Unless we want more Jim Adkissons to heed the call to "war", we all better start working for peace.

Will The Real Feminist Please Stand Up?

Well, it seems as though the feminist blogosphere is doing its semi-monthly implosion over who, exactly, is THE REAL FEMINIST, and who is the eevul shill for our Patriarchal Overloards, who are trying to convince us its cool to remove our floating ribs and wear whalebone corsets again.

Let me throw out a few things before I really get into this:

1. I know that not everyone who calls themselves (I'm going to use the incorrect gender-neutral plurals 'they' and'them', because I find the personal pronoun juggling cumbersome) a feminist is.

2. I know the MSM, among others, tries to sell women on "empowerful" popfem crap that is really just the same old patriarchal tripe.

3. Patriarchy is everywhere. It is the water we fish swim in.

Let me also talk about what I am referring to. Specifically, I am referring to this post on Feministe, the diatribe by FA linked to in the Feministe piece, this response at Renegade Evolution's place , and this piece from I Blame The Patriarchy.

Got all that? I hope so. Blogger HATES real html, so that was a real labor of love up there.

Now. The upshot of all of that is that- surprise! Some people think that "pretty" feminists aren't real feminists. "Feminist Anonymist", who I don't know, had some interesting things to say to women who fit within societal beauty norms-

If an ugly woman posts her picture on her blog, she is being transgressive.
But a pretty conventional woman doing that is performing the exact opposite
action. If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't
call yourself a feminist.

So, being ugly is transgressive? I'll have to remember that for future reference. FA seems to think the "sexxxyfunfeminists" have "let us down", the presumptive "us" in this case being "feminists"...because they weren't born transgressive enough?

Wowwie wow wow wow. I don't even know where to begin here. What a crazy can of worms. First of all, "ugly" by who's standards? FA's? Mine? Hugh Hefner's? Am I supposed to vet my pics from now on with the arbiter of ugly so as not to "let down" The Movement? Talk about New and Improved Oppression, Now With More Self-Loathing!

Twisty takes on this subject with a little more nuance, and links it to the "rape culture". Women who make themselves pretty buy into the rape culture. As do sex workers, which I will deal with in a moment. Now, Twisty's take on things has always been consistent, and a lot more coherent than the stuff I read at FA's. I like a lot what Twisty says. I buy the whole rape culture idea- we do treat women as consumables, and that's a huge problem. But here is where Twisty and I part ways- I still blame the patriarchy. Twisty apparently puts part of the blame on the "funfeminists" who "buy in" by making themselves conventionally attractive.

Please refer back to #3 above. Patriarchy is the water we swim in. We are fish in that ocean. EVERY single blessed thing we ever do is shaped by the patriarchy. Even if I rebel against it, I use techniques of resistance it taught me, and I legitimize its opression of me, because now I AM dangerous and antisocial. No one can get away from it. Why, oh why would anyone want to condemn any woman who is self-aware enough to know she is being used by the patriarchy and who is fighting back any way she can? And who among us is so stainless that we can judge anyone for capitulating? True "collaborators" are those who join in the shaming, blaming, and narrowing of women's horizons by telling them what they can and can't do.

Also, we've got to get away from the gender stereotyping crap ourselves. Just because society has named makeup or the color pink or shoes "feminine" doesn't mean they in fact are. Just because society has defined "feminine" as weak doesn't mean it is. The truth is much, much scarier for the patriarchs- "feminine" DOESN'T EVEN EXIST! I can think of many occasions where wearing makeup or donning heels could be a transgressive statement, especially when certain brands of patriarchy are tied up in modesty fetishization, and call those things immodest. No one size fits all, and no one knows better than the individual women in the individual circumstances they face what being "transgressive" truly is. And why this big push for transgression? Can't I wear standard clothes and still make a statement about my political and philosophical beliefs in other ways? Were the suffragists who marched in their corsets and long skirts not transgressive enough to count as feminists?

This all leads me to the sex work conundrum, because this is where the lines seem to be drawn the deepest. Over at Twisty's she lamented the fact that:

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, while privileged Western dudes continue to
reward funfeminists who “choose” to ironically embrace the
hilarious trappings
of rape culture, the ripples they make in the global
misogyny continuum aren’t
so funny: “I am a widow
and I have to feed my five children. I am illiterate and no one will give me
a
job. I hate to be a prostitute but if I stop doing this job my children
will
starve to death.”

Really, Twisty? A woman who wears heels or who works as a stripper is making the woman in Afghanistan suffer as a prostitute? Sorry- here I thought that was the patriarchy again. The sad fact is that a lot of women are pushed into prostitution out of desperation- here in the US, and abroad. It's sad. It's deplorable. But really, it isn't the fault of women who embrace sex work. It's the fault of societies that accord no respect to women, which have no safety nets to help impoverished families, and which often pass laws that make sex work a dangerous, unregulated sector of society that largely passes under the radar. This, along with the fundamental disregard society shows for "fallen women", makes their lot precarious.

Just because sex work has been labeled as "dirty" and "bad" by the patriarchy doesn't make it so. Women can and do choose to do this kind of work (as much as anyone can choose anything in an oppressive system). The answer isn't to limit women's choices. The answer is to legitimate all choices, and give more women the chance to choose.

As I see it, all of this hoo ha boils down to one real issue- short term v. long term goals. Short term goals tend to revolve around making things better for the people right here, right now. Changing laws usually falls into this category. Most of the big landmarks in the feminist movement- suffrage, access to education, liberalized divorce laws, liberalized employment laws, etc. fall under this category. These tend to be easier changes to make, because they are more concrete.

Then, there are the long-term goals. These are the "revolutionary" ideas of actually changing the philosophy that underpins patriarchy. This is the hearts and mind stuff. I'm not saying changing laws is easy, but it's a walk in the park compared to this. Change in these areas moves at a glacial pace- lifetimes go by with only the smallest shifts being made here.

Both are important. Both need to get done. People who focus on the long term, I am convinced, are the ones who see "funfeminists" as a disappointment. They want to go for the "big idea" things, start the revolution of ideas. But ironically, the spark that starts the revolution of ideas is usually the short-term goal action. The women who make sex work safer and more respectable slowly start to tear down the madonna/whore dichotomy. Women who focus on affordable daycare and health care normalize the consideration of "women's issues" as general quality of life issues. The winning of specific "rights" forces society to look at women as full citizens. See how it all hangs together?

People who care about women being treated as full human beings are feminists. Pretty or ugly, lipstick or no. We can differ on the particulars, but of that fundamental fact, there can be no argument. Divisions and labels are arbitrary, and are placed upon women by the patriarchy.

I don't want to prop up those divisions any more.