Normally this is the sort of thing I’d put in a Facebook note – it’s what I think of as my more personal blogging outlet. However Interrobang was conceived as a place for serious discussion of serious matters, and as such, my thoughts on the Tao Te Ching after spending nearly three months reading a chapter daily, or almost daily (I forgot once or twice) have to belong here and not there.
When I decided to get a copy of the Tao, I didn’t know what I was looking for, per se. I’m still not entirely sure what I was searching for out of all this – I’ve never been a particularly spiritual person, if only because of a lack of exposure to truly meaningful spiritual texts. I may have gone to a Christian high school, but quite frankly, I don’t think essentially forced attendance at church services whose theme is...wait for it...rice carries any sort of religious or spiritual weight. If you believe in God and love him (I refuse to capitalise that), then good for you for finding something real in Christianity. I never have. I started questioning God pretty much at the same time I started questioning Santa. As such, I’ve been pretty firmly an atheist for around a decade – I learnt the word in year 7 R.E. and started applying it to myself somewhere in the next six months to a year.
But of late, specifically as I began reading more Ursula Le Guin’s older, more sci-fi based work mid-last year, I began to realise I was getting something more out of her work than just pleasure at her skill and imagination. That ‘something’, I realised, was Le Guin’s long-term connection with Taoism. With an anthropologist for a father, she stumbled across the Tao Te Ching as a child and essentially grew up with it. Its ideals are integral to her writing, and it was those values that I found fascinating, and most importantly, interesting from a spiritual perspective. And when I discovered Le Guin had done her own translation/rendition of the Tao, I knew that this was it: my way into this intriguing thing I could sense behind her fiction. Up until then, I don’t think I’d quite realised I was looking for a way in.
So I got the book, got some tips from our friend the internet and went from there. The early passages I devoted a lot of time to, often trying to memorise them so I could recite them to myself during the day and so work my way through the denseness of the language. Because by all reports, Lao Tzu wrote things in a dense, deceptively simple way, and anyone who’s ever tackled a Le Guin novel knows that she does a very similar thing, and that it sometimes alienates the reader. So with the two of them together, it could often be quite a challenge to even absorb the words on the page, regardless of their apparently straightforward nature.
“The way you can go
isn’t the real way.
The name you can say
isn’t the real name.
Heaven and earth
begin in the unnamed;
Name’s the mother
of the ten thousand things.
So the unwanting soul
sees what’s hidden
and the ever-wanting soul
sees only what it wants.
Two things, one origin,
but different in name,
whose identity is mystery.
Mystery of all mysteries!
The door to the hidden.”
I have to admit that when I read this, the first chapter of the Tao, I was more than a little transfixed by it. At that point, it seemed very much like I would something worth understanding in the little book. As a writer, I still look at it and love the beauty of it. In truth, it’s probably the above passage and the one below, which came second, that struck me most deeply.
“Everybody on earth knowing
that beauty is beautiful
makes ugliness.
Everybody knowing
That goodness is good
makes wickedness.
For being and nonbeing
arise together;
hard and easy
complete each other;
long and short
shape each other;
high and low
depend on each other;
note and voice
make the music together;
before and after
follow each other.
That’s why the wise soul
does without doing,
teaches without talking.
The things of this world
exist, they are;
you can’t refuse them.
To bear and not own;
to act and not lay claim;
to do the work and let it go:
for just letting it go
is what makes it stay.”
I think what makes the above passage so interesting to me is that it is talking about something I can and do readily accept as ‘fact’. The chapter is to some extent with the nature of yin and yang as a constantly shifting balance. I can no longer remember where I read this explanation of the concept, but if you throw a stone into a pool, there will be ripples. We all know that, but if you think of how the high points of the ripple and the low points in between will swap places as the ripple spreads outward before finally returning to quiescence. In other words, what was yang (to oversimplify a bit, the high points) will become yin (the low points) and vice versa before both revert back into a single whole. It’s a fascinating idea to me, if only because it ties in with a conclusion that I’d already come to on my own: that the universe has a sort of flow that shifts direction according to its own whims. Maybe I’m getting a bit esoteric now, but in the concept of yin and yang, I see the ‘shifting flow’ that I had already perceived myself.
As I progressed through the Tao, I began to interact with it less as a spiritual tract and more as a thought for the day. I was less struck by entire chapters and more by individual lines or stanzas. In short, I started to get less out of it, the more I read. I’m not sure if this was simply the nature of my life getting in the way of me properly absorbing the work, the part of me that is a bit of more hardcore about the atheism than the rest tearing things down, or the fact that I actively disagreed with a certain amount of the ideas presented. I think it’s probably a combination of the first and third things. My atheism is largely a hazy-edged thing and I don’t think I was really dismissing what I was reading so much as only truly connecting with some of it. As the book goes on, the unity described in the first two chapters slowly gets deconstructed and discussed at length. For some reason, I found it easier to understand and appreciate the earlier chapters, ‘the whole’ than I did the increasingly smaller pieces. And of course, Lao Tzu says himself in that first chapter, and in later ones, that the Way is inherently elusive.
But then there were simple, basic moments that simply felt right to me – “To give no trust/is to get not trust” (17 and 23) is a case in point. In all honesty, reading the Tao Te Ching was like trying to find stones at the bottom of a rushing river – the water is pleasantly cool, but nothing you can easily catch hold of. You can grab the stones, but they’re at the end of the day only part of what you can see in the river itself. Here are some other little maxims I picked up along the way (pun intended).
“Forget the rules
Be untroubled.” (19)
“Self-satisfied people do no good,
Self-promoters never grow up.” (24)
“To enjoy using weapons
is to enjoy killing people,
and to enjoy killing people
is to lose your share in the common good.” (31)
“The great square has no corners.
The great vessel is never finished.
The great tone is barely heard.
The great thought can’t be thought.” (41)
“All you grasp will be thrown away,
All you hoard will be utterly lost.” (44)
“When the world’s on the Way,
they use horses to haul manure.
When the world’s off the Way,
They breed warhorses on the common.” (46)
“Seek, you‘ll find it.
Hide, it will shelter you.” (62)
“The nine-storey tower rises
from a heap of clay.” (64)
“I have three treasures.
I keep and treasure them.
The first, mercy,
the second, moderation,
the third, modesty.
If you’re merciful you can be brave,
if you’re moderate you can be generous,
and if you don’t presume to lead
you can lead the high and mighty.” (67)
“We ought not to live in narrow houses,
we ought not to do stupid work.
If we don’t accept stupidity
we won’t act stupidly.” (72)
To some of the above, I simply went, “Yes, that’s right,” or “Huh – I never thought of it that way before.” All I know is that they make sense to me on a very basic level. The excerpts of 67 and 72 are very much reflective of the way I try to approach life – perhaps I wouldn’t have chosen words like mercy and moderation to explain the way I want to do things, but modesty is certainly very deeply ingrained into my being. And I’ve never had much time for stupidity or senselessness, rightly or wrongly.
So what did I actually get out the Tao Te Ching? To be honest, I’m not sure. Ideas, I think. That sounds so basic, but I think that’s what happened – I absorbed the concepts, the spirit engendered in all the 81 chapters without really deeply interacting with them. I think certain amounts of it will resurface down the track, and I think it’s probably already positively affected my outlook on life to an extent. I was surprised how many little pieces I felt I had to mention above, how much of I felt was important, was central. I suspect I’m like many of Lao Tzu’s readers, just managing to grip a few stones in the river.
Am I a Taoist? No, I don’t think so. I think a certain amount of my own perceptions of the greater universe are inherently Taoist. The eternal interplay of yin and yang I embrace fully, just as I do the pacifist nature of parts of the text. The recurrent point that the Way is difficult to properly comprehend I definitely get. But some of it, for example the passages about the correct way to govern, I simply didn’t agree with. Maybe ignorance is the easiest means to a simple, full life on the Way, but as Lao Tzu puts it, “The great way is low and plain/but people like shortcuts over the mountains.” I like shortcuts over the mountains. I am a curious being by nature and I would never try to suppress that in myself. Thus, I cannot follow that particular part of the Way, amongst others. I don’t think that’s a failure on my part, or that the text is inherently wrong on this point. I just would never try to stifle my personality in pursuit of a spiritual goal. If you have to change or ignore parts of who you are at your core in order to follow a belief system, then you should not follow it. Which, when I think about it, is why I never connected with Christianity – so much of the brand of it which I encountered was so incredibly mired in restriction, in forbidding people from their own natural inclinations on every level. Of course the Tao is not like this; hence I found something real in it. This excerpt from chapter 21 is probably the best summation of how I now perceive the Tao:
“How the Way does things
is hard to grasp, elusive.
Elusive, yes, hard to grasp,
yet there are thoughts in it.
Hard to grasp, yes, elusive,
yet there are things in it.
Hard to make out, yes, and obscure,
yet there is spirit in it, veritable spirit.
There is certainty in it.”
I guess what I’m trying to express is that in the past three months, I found something solid in the Tao Te Ching, and in the Way. It just wasn’t the all-consuming, life-changing thing I expected it to be. And quite frankly, I’m glad that it wasn’t. I don’t believe I’m made for a deep and constant connection with spirituality. I think in my life, it belongs in the background, as a comforting underlying knowledge – there when I need it, but quiet and almost unnoticeable if I don’t.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Hands up...
..if you are wondering how the hell a carbon tax works? I know I was. My vague impression was that it is basically a tax designed to make fossil-fuel-based utilities more expensive for everyone - that's the company producing the utilities right down to the lowliest consumer. My understanding was that this greater expense is designed to force people into using more environmentally-friendly power sources by essentially beating them where it hurts most: the wallet.
But I didn't feel I should get on here and start ranting without better information, so I went to our good friends at Google and found out. The unfortunate thing is , it appears the hazy summation outlined above is entirely correct. Behold:
"So in order to reduce the fees, utilities, business and individuals attempt to use less energy derived from fossil fuels. An individual might switch to public transportation and replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A business might increase energy efficiency by installing new appliances or updating heating and cooling systems. A utility company might use wet scrubbers, low NOx-burners or gasification to reduce their emissions."
The lack of realism in this is mind-boggling. It's like saying that if you start poking a person for standing in a particular spot, they'll just go somewhere else, i.e. a place where poking will not occur. It doesn't account for the other alternative - the person angrily turns around and asks why the fuck you're poking them. Or in other words, bilking people out of money for using one type of power does not necessarily mean they will migrate to other (and I must point out again, still grossly inefficient) type of power. It might just mean that they shoulder the cost, and vote in the first person who promises to repeal the tax - in Australia's case, Tony Abbott.
Another problem, one that many, many people have already pointed out since Julia Gillard did yet another astonishing backflip (remember the 'it's more likely I'll play for the Western Bulldogs than be PM' comment?) and said she was "putting a price on carbon", is that pushing on the price up on one thing pushes the price up on everything else. What I'm getting is that it's hard not to see this tax affecting people's ability to afford the solar panels and whatever else that the carbon tax claims to be encouraging. Even a small-scale system costs thousands of dollars, even with rebates, and even with the compensation Gillard and co will no doubt shell out. And though things like home solar panels do eventually pay for themselves, it's by no means a short-term investment, and if people can't afford the initial outlay, they're not going to take up the option.
Thirdly, that compensation for low and middle-income earners Gillard's promising, the one I briefly mentioned above, isn't that actually going to render the tax useless? I mean, if the point of the tax is to make eco-energy sources the more cost-effective option, to increase the money going out of households and businesses in order to get them to find solutions that will lessen that flow, surely any compensatory benefit or exemption removes the punitive element of the tax. If the amount of money people have with which to buy food and other essentials remains roughly static, or slightly down, or even significantly down but not far enough to create serious issue, they're not going to feel pressured enough to switch to a green power option.
And also, since when can people on minimum wage afford the aforementioned thousands to install solar panels? Or to pay the extra one to five dollars a week to receive green power from electricity suppliers like Origin? I don't doubt that some middle-income earners could and would afford the above, and so would some low-income earners, but there are also people living hand to mouth who will be thinking about where the next meal is coming from, and then providing more comforts for their families, and then many, many other things before they have the luxury of green power. Because like it or not, effective, environmentally-friendly options in terms of power and other utilities are largely the province of the people with the money for them.
Of course, there are things in the quote above, like public transportation and switching to fluorescents. On the latter point, most people have already made that switch - unlike solar, fluorescents are both cheap and more commonly to be found in the supermarket. Also, though there are of course environmental and energy conservation benefits to doing cutting out incandescents, it's not a particularly significant saving, at least not in the context of more significant reducers of carbon usage.
As for PT, well that comes down to what's affordable, and what's convenient. Though public transport is affordable for most people, it is only in inner city areas that living entirely without a car is practical. It is possible in the outer suburbs, of course -but if you think you can get your groceries home on a hot day without meat defrosting and milk turning when it can take up to an hour to do a trip that takes only 15 minutes by car. That may be a slight exaggeration, but the point is, a complete move to public transport is not really feasible for the suburban person, and the farther out you get, the less workable it becomes.
And there is two other major problems with public transport in the context of a carbon tax, and in the context of Melbourne itself. Most buses run on diesel, (there are some ethanol ones) and though that fuel releases less carbon than petrol, it is still a fossil fuel. And trams and trains? Well, they're electric, and as most of us know, the bulk of this state's electricity comes from fossil fuel. So though public transport is probably reducing fossil fuel consumption, it's not actually the super green option it's touted as - the carbon continues. The second problem is of course that as as carbon emitters, public transport operators will also be liable for the carbon tax, thus pushing up that cost. In other words, when it comes to PT, the carbon tax will leave people between a rock and a hard place when it comes to trying avoid its effects.
And there's one more I was wondering about - if you price a gas in the air, what happens to the money? Well, it goes to the government - who (sarcasm alert) is just so incredibly efficient at managing the country's money that we can only assume they'll be able to buy us all a solid gold trophy of Climate Change Awesomeness in a couple of years. You know, once solar and wind power have suddenly stopped being problematic for mass consumption, and China decides it wants to buy those off us instead of cheap-burning coal.
In short, this tax is ridiculous. It's just acres and acres of stick for one mouldy carrot. Yes, cleaner sources of power are a good idea, or they will be when it can reliably supply as much power as fossil-fuel-based power, but beating money out of the populace until they do as they're told smacks of the nanny state mentality that Julia Gillard is increasingly using to govern this nation. She (and other proponents of this thing - yes, I'm looking at you, Bob Brown and Christina Milne) is basically to saying to the Australian people, "Be green, or give us your money". And that means that whatever your political and environmental leanings, it can't be denied that a carbon tax legislates against what ought to be a choice, not something mandated and forced upon people by government. It's really easy to say, "But some people will never go green if we don't do this" or "we need action now", but should that really be coming at the cost of people having their own opinions, making their own decisions? What price the planet if our government treats us like children?
But I didn't feel I should get on here and start ranting without better information, so I went to our good friends at Google and found out. The unfortunate thing is , it appears the hazy summation outlined above is entirely correct. Behold:
"So in order to reduce the fees, utilities, business and individuals attempt to use less energy derived from fossil fuels. An individual might switch to public transportation and replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A business might increase energy efficiency by installing new appliances or updating heating and cooling systems. A utility company might use wet scrubbers, low NOx-burners or gasification to reduce their emissions."
The lack of realism in this is mind-boggling. It's like saying that if you start poking a person for standing in a particular spot, they'll just go somewhere else, i.e. a place where poking will not occur. It doesn't account for the other alternative - the person angrily turns around and asks why the fuck you're poking them. Or in other words, bilking people out of money for using one type of power does not necessarily mean they will migrate to other (and I must point out again, still grossly inefficient) type of power. It might just mean that they shoulder the cost, and vote in the first person who promises to repeal the tax - in Australia's case, Tony Abbott.
Another problem, one that many, many people have already pointed out since Julia Gillard did yet another astonishing backflip (remember the 'it's more likely I'll play for the Western Bulldogs than be PM' comment?) and said she was "putting a price on carbon", is that pushing on the price up on one thing pushes the price up on everything else. What I'm getting is that it's hard not to see this tax affecting people's ability to afford the solar panels and whatever else that the carbon tax claims to be encouraging. Even a small-scale system costs thousands of dollars, even with rebates, and even with the compensation Gillard and co will no doubt shell out. And though things like home solar panels do eventually pay for themselves, it's by no means a short-term investment, and if people can't afford the initial outlay, they're not going to take up the option.
Thirdly, that compensation for low and middle-income earners Gillard's promising, the one I briefly mentioned above, isn't that actually going to render the tax useless? I mean, if the point of the tax is to make eco-energy sources the more cost-effective option, to increase the money going out of households and businesses in order to get them to find solutions that will lessen that flow, surely any compensatory benefit or exemption removes the punitive element of the tax. If the amount of money people have with which to buy food and other essentials remains roughly static, or slightly down, or even significantly down but not far enough to create serious issue, they're not going to feel pressured enough to switch to a green power option.
And also, since when can people on minimum wage afford the aforementioned thousands to install solar panels? Or to pay the extra one to five dollars a week to receive green power from electricity suppliers like Origin? I don't doubt that some middle-income earners could and would afford the above, and so would some low-income earners, but there are also people living hand to mouth who will be thinking about where the next meal is coming from, and then providing more comforts for their families, and then many, many other things before they have the luxury of green power. Because like it or not, effective, environmentally-friendly options in terms of power and other utilities are largely the province of the people with the money for them.
Of course, there are things in the quote above, like public transportation and switching to fluorescents. On the latter point, most people have already made that switch - unlike solar, fluorescents are both cheap and more commonly to be found in the supermarket. Also, though there are of course environmental and energy conservation benefits to doing cutting out incandescents, it's not a particularly significant saving, at least not in the context of more significant reducers of carbon usage.
As for PT, well that comes down to what's affordable, and what's convenient. Though public transport is affordable for most people, it is only in inner city areas that living entirely without a car is practical. It is possible in the outer suburbs, of course -but if you think you can get your groceries home on a hot day without meat defrosting and milk turning when it can take up to an hour to do a trip that takes only 15 minutes by car. That may be a slight exaggeration, but the point is, a complete move to public transport is not really feasible for the suburban person, and the farther out you get, the less workable it becomes.
And there is two other major problems with public transport in the context of a carbon tax, and in the context of Melbourne itself. Most buses run on diesel, (there are some ethanol ones) and though that fuel releases less carbon than petrol, it is still a fossil fuel. And trams and trains? Well, they're electric, and as most of us know, the bulk of this state's electricity comes from fossil fuel. So though public transport is probably reducing fossil fuel consumption, it's not actually the super green option it's touted as - the carbon continues. The second problem is of course that as as carbon emitters, public transport operators will also be liable for the carbon tax, thus pushing up that cost. In other words, when it comes to PT, the carbon tax will leave people between a rock and a hard place when it comes to trying avoid its effects.
And there's one more I was wondering about - if you price a gas in the air, what happens to the money? Well, it goes to the government - who (sarcasm alert) is just so incredibly efficient at managing the country's money that we can only assume they'll be able to buy us all a solid gold trophy of Climate Change Awesomeness in a couple of years. You know, once solar and wind power have suddenly stopped being problematic for mass consumption, and China decides it wants to buy those off us instead of cheap-burning coal.
In short, this tax is ridiculous. It's just acres and acres of stick for one mouldy carrot. Yes, cleaner sources of power are a good idea, or they will be when it can reliably supply as much power as fossil-fuel-based power, but beating money out of the populace until they do as they're told smacks of the nanny state mentality that Julia Gillard is increasingly using to govern this nation. She (and other proponents of this thing - yes, I'm looking at you, Bob Brown and Christina Milne) is basically to saying to the Australian people, "Be green, or give us your money". And that means that whatever your political and environmental leanings, it can't be denied that a carbon tax legislates against what ought to be a choice, not something mandated and forced upon people by government. It's really easy to say, "But some people will never go green if we don't do this" or "we need action now", but should that really be coming at the cost of people having their own opinions, making their own decisions? What price the planet if our government treats us like children?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
A little change of pace
I've have been voraciously reading the amazing Hyperbole and a Half by Allie Brosh of late. (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/ - check it out, it's extremely funny) That and my recent trip to the Dreams Come True exhibit at ACMI has inspired me to create this, my first (and depending on how well it goes, perhaps only) 'Crudely-Drawn Mythological Creature of the Week' post. The drawing thing I will avow here and now is something that I have borrowed from Awesome Allie, but I've tried to use it my own way. Besides, Allie is more than capable of drawing very, very well. I am not. I can, if I really try and go very slowly, draw certain things semi-decently - specifically, maps and my female protagonists. Otherwise I'm pretty much a black hole when it comes to drawing talent.As you can see, Creature of the Week is the oh-so-mighty dragon.
Now, there are plenty of incarnations of dragons throughout fantasy and mythology in general. A lot of the older legends in the UK centre around there being great British dragons, such as the red one on the Welsh flag. Their dormant bodies, lying in wait for when Britain once more needs them, are said to form various mountain ranges throughout the UK.
As a symbol, the dragon is enormously versatile - it can range from vicious beast all the way through to cultured higher being, and sometimes writers will portray many of these aspects in a single dragon. A lot of mythological creatures have this multiplicity of viewpoints, but as it is somewhat of the grand daddy of all mythological beasts, the variance is greatest here.
Obviously Smaug of Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' is quite a well-known one, and an example of your bargain-basement dragon - i.e. sleeps on gold in a cave, breathes fire, weak underbelly. In this form (which like so many fantasy tropes, became prevalent because Tolkien did it) the dragon is essentially the embodiment of greed. And fire. Always, always fire.
Other famous renditions are Saphira in Paolini's Inheritance novels (that's more for kids/young adults, though) and Segoy/Kalessin in Le Guin's Tehanu and all the Earthsea novels that follow after that. The former is a rather well-realised representation of the dragon-as-human - the beast is essentially human internally. S/he acts with humanity always and is a sympathetic creature. Kalessin is also a dragon-as-human, but differs very sharply, partly out of the much greater talent of his/her (it's never quite clear) creator, Le Guin, and partly because the aim was different - to use the dragon as a symbol of knowledge, which is probably the next most common rendition of fire-lizards after greedy gold-hoarder.
Anyway, this is the most important part - how to kill/not be killed by a dragon.
How to Kill:
- If you are facing a standard gold-loving reptile, then that weak underbelly should be foremost in your mind. Otherwise it's just armoured scales, claws, more armoured scales, fire out one end, and only god knows what out the other.
You will need a sword, but no armour, because a dragon is at the very least 10 times bigger than you, and it is better to be able to run away partially burnt, then all burnt and dead because you can't run in chainmail.
A bow may work, so too a javelin. Basically anything pointy that you can throw from a safe distance. To my knowledge, no-one has ever used a gun on a dragon. I don't advise you to try.
- If you are facing the superintelligent breed of dragon, your method is largely the same - stay back, be ready to throw your sharp object when you get an opportunity. The very important difference is that you will have far less opportunity with a smart dragon. In fact, your life hinges on your being smarter than the dragon. Not many people are, so if you have a smart dragon (they tend to use riddles and be quite charming...until they eat you) on your hands, please refer to the next section.
How Not to Be Killed:
- In the case of the angry, bestial and not very intelligent dragon, do not enter the cave/lair. You can spot one from the outside by checking the ground for a trail of gold coins of various shapes and sizes, some with bite marks. This is a bit hard to miss, so if you manage to accidentally walk into the cave, then the gene pool's probably better off without you.
But if you beg to differ, leaving before they notice you is a good strategy. If you also fail at this (the piles of gold on the floor do make it difficult to be stealthy), run like hell, and don't look back if you value the skin on your face. A dragon will breathe fire on trespassers as quickly as a redneck reaches for a shotgun. I repeat, RUN.
- As for our genius dragon, if they notice you in their lair (or nest/eyrie - the smart ones often like a high-up dwelling of some kind), you're probably screwed. They may toy with you for a while, but if they want to eat you, they will eat you. They've already figured out all the ways you could escape and formulated plans for each eventuality.
If you are extremely, unbelievably lucky (and probably you're not, 'cause lucky people don't end up in the nests of smart dragons), then you might manage to foil one of these counter-escape plans. If this happens, then again, RUN.
But because they are very intelligent, they will know your fear of mortality and will often take great joy in making you think you have a chance. If a way to escape seems obvious or unnoticed, don't take it. S/he will engage you in conversation, either to mesmerise you (smart dragons are quite skilled at this) or simply to give you a sporting chance. If you succeed in proving you are intelligent enough to live, then maybe, maybe you will be allowed to leave.
But as with many things in life, prevention is better than cure, so don't go looking for an intelligent dragon, or any dragon at all.
In closing:
Dragons are cool in a figurative sense, and fiery in a literal sense. If you see one, ascertain which kind of dragon it is. If it snarls and little else, it's a standard dragon. RUN. If it speaks with better diction than you, despite the rows of teeth and the smoke curling forth, politely answer all questions as intelligently as possible, cross your fingers, and if s/he gives you permission, RUN.
Tune in next week for another Crudely-Drawn Mythological Creature!
Monday, January 3, 2011
Oh, come on!
Every time I get angry about something more important than just "damn you, person in the car in front, the speed limit is eighty. EIGHTY!" I come here and write a blog. And very often, it seems to me that I get angry about (A) The Federal Government or (B) Self-esteem (particularly women's) and how the world tries to make sure you don't have any. Today's post is about B. Again. Sorry about that, but this is really pretty disturbing and enraging.
"[Katie] Price is often viewed a collective ideal of genuine modern femininity to a widespread audience: particularly to females. Her continual struggle with the British media against her personal life and 'rags to riches' story has turned her into an inspirational role model."
That is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for Katie Price (or Jordan), ex-wife of Peter Andre, 'glamour model' (read: near-naked most of the time and possibly outsizes Pam Anderson in the implant stakes), and the skankiest skank who ever did skank. You can see the result of a Google Images search for her below.
http://www.google.com.au/images?q=katie+price&hl=en&rlz=1T4DAAU_en-GB___AU307&prmd=ivnsuo&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=n7AiTfz7LIGKvQPnr6WNDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBIQ_AU
Sexually appealing (if you're into girls and like them uber-fake), maybe. A role model? No.
NO
She is no more an 'ideal of modern femininity' than a cactus. Or a rock. I mean, holy hell, we are talking about someone who no joke put make-up and false eyelashes on her two-year-old daughter and then posted a picture on the internet. Katie Price is a shell made out of sex and tits, essentially a living sex-doll. That she is an image of the very worst example of modern femininity there is no denying. She is an epitome of the 'I am woman, watch me wear very little and have sex with as many men as possible' mentality. Very little clothing, even less self-respect.
To be clear, I absolutely believe that it is Katie Price's right to live her life in this fashion, just as it is for anyone who chooses such an utterly barren path through life. But don't tell me that she is ideal. Don't tell me that this total lack of any merit or virtue or anything that could remotely be called a good quality or be at least indicative of an acquaintance with reality is what the modern woman is or should aspire to.
So who should be a role model for modern women? Who is ideal? Well, to be honest, the best case scenario would be that women be strong enough not to need to rely on other women to make them feel confident in themselves. But I have to admit Kate Winslet and Helena Bonham Carter are both excellent examples of what femininity (and indeed humanity) should be about - self-belief and self-expression that pays no heed to the heckles of the crowd.
Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter, Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland amongst others) is utterly herself, without hesitation or apology. Nearly every time she attends a film premiere, she gets attacked by the 'fashion commentators' for dressing in way that could be fairly described as bonkers. But damn it if she doesn't always, always look bloody awesome anyway. Why? Because she doesn't give a crap what those idiots think, she's comfortable in the body she was born with, and the clothes she chooses to wear. She is completely happy to be herself - a rare thing in a person of any sex, let alone an actress.
Kate Winslet is, like me, a woman who is made angry by the promotion of insecurity. From her Wikipedia entry:
"Winslet has been outspoken about her refusal to allow Hollywood to dictate her weight. [...] She ha[s] always expressed the opinion that women should be encouraged to accept their appearance with pride, and therefore 'was particularly upset to be accused of lying about my exercise regimen, and felt that I had a responsibility to request an apology in order to demonstrate my commitment to the views that I have always expressed about body issues, including diet and exercise.'"
Now, if you did a Google Images search on either of these women, you would most definitely find photos of them posed provocatively, or with very little on, or nothing at all. Doing these things doesn't automatically make you into another Katie Price, no matter how much I might rant about her, her image and her lifestyle. (And I repeat - it is her life, she can do what she wants) But there is a rather large difference between dressing/being photographed in a manner that embraces one's femininity and sexuality, and dressing/being photographed in a manner that is, let's face it, largely for the masturbatory fantasies of boys, teenaged or otherwise. The former is about self-expression, about confidence in one's body and person. The latter is an marketing tool at best, a heinously void, self-perpetuating lie at worst.
I don't know exactly where to end with this - I came into this angry that anyone, anyone at all, could even begin to consider Katie Price as a positive reflection of femininity. Because (to hammer the point home one more time) she is everything that is negative in modern constructions of woman. (SIGHS) I am aware of how lucky I am to feel comfortable with myself and my body. I am aware that is excruciatingly difficult for some women to even look in the mirror, so deeply mired are they in self-loathing. I just wish that more people would find a way (to paraphrase Kate Winslet) to accept themselves for who they are, to be proud to be who they are. The fact that there are so many people out there who would look to someone like Katie Price as a role model is more depressing than anything else, because it means that in the battle between positive and negative views of the modern self (for both men and women, I should add),
negativity is winning. Quite overwhelmingly. It's hard to be anything but sad about that.
"[Katie] Price is often viewed a collective ideal of genuine modern femininity to a widespread audience: particularly to females. Her continual struggle with the British media against her personal life and 'rags to riches' story has turned her into an inspirational role model."
That is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for Katie Price (or Jordan), ex-wife of Peter Andre, 'glamour model' (read: near-naked most of the time and possibly outsizes Pam Anderson in the implant stakes), and the skankiest skank who ever did skank. You can see the result of a Google Images search for her below.
http://www.google.com.au/images?q=katie+price&hl=en&rlz=1T4DAAU_en-GB___AU307&prmd=ivnsuo&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=n7AiTfz7LIGKvQPnr6WNDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBIQ_AU
Sexually appealing (if you're into girls and like them uber-fake), maybe. A role model? No.
NO
She is no more an 'ideal of modern femininity' than a cactus. Or a rock. I mean, holy hell, we are talking about someone who no joke put make-up and false eyelashes on her two-year-old daughter and then posted a picture on the internet. Katie Price is a shell made out of sex and tits, essentially a living sex-doll. That she is an image of the very worst example of modern femininity there is no denying. She is an epitome of the 'I am woman, watch me wear very little and have sex with as many men as possible' mentality. Very little clothing, even less self-respect.
To be clear, I absolutely believe that it is Katie Price's right to live her life in this fashion, just as it is for anyone who chooses such an utterly barren path through life. But don't tell me that she is ideal. Don't tell me that this total lack of any merit or virtue or anything that could remotely be called a good quality or be at least indicative of an acquaintance with reality is what the modern woman is or should aspire to.
So who should be a role model for modern women? Who is ideal? Well, to be honest, the best case scenario would be that women be strong enough not to need to rely on other women to make them feel confident in themselves. But I have to admit Kate Winslet and Helena Bonham Carter are both excellent examples of what femininity (and indeed humanity) should be about - self-belief and self-expression that pays no heed to the heckles of the crowd.
Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter, Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland amongst others) is utterly herself, without hesitation or apology. Nearly every time she attends a film premiere, she gets attacked by the 'fashion commentators' for dressing in way that could be fairly described as bonkers. But damn it if she doesn't always, always look bloody awesome anyway. Why? Because she doesn't give a crap what those idiots think, she's comfortable in the body she was born with, and the clothes she chooses to wear. She is completely happy to be herself - a rare thing in a person of any sex, let alone an actress.
Kate Winslet is, like me, a woman who is made angry by the promotion of insecurity. From her Wikipedia entry:
"Winslet has been outspoken about her refusal to allow Hollywood to dictate her weight. [...] She ha[s] always expressed the opinion that women should be encouraged to accept their appearance with pride, and therefore 'was particularly upset to be accused of lying about my exercise regimen, and felt that I had a responsibility to request an apology in order to demonstrate my commitment to the views that I have always expressed about body issues, including diet and exercise.'"
Now, if you did a Google Images search on either of these women, you would most definitely find photos of them posed provocatively, or with very little on, or nothing at all. Doing these things doesn't automatically make you into another Katie Price, no matter how much I might rant about her, her image and her lifestyle. (And I repeat - it is her life, she can do what she wants) But there is a rather large difference between dressing/being photographed in a manner that embraces one's femininity and sexuality, and dressing/being photographed in a manner that is, let's face it, largely for the masturbatory fantasies of boys, teenaged or otherwise. The former is about self-expression, about confidence in one's body and person. The latter is an marketing tool at best, a heinously void, self-perpetuating lie at worst.
I don't know exactly where to end with this - I came into this angry that anyone, anyone at all, could even begin to consider Katie Price as a positive reflection of femininity. Because (to hammer the point home one more time) she is everything that is negative in modern constructions of woman. (SIGHS) I am aware of how lucky I am to feel comfortable with myself and my body. I am aware that is excruciatingly difficult for some women to even look in the mirror, so deeply mired are they in self-loathing. I just wish that more people would find a way (to paraphrase Kate Winslet) to accept themselves for who they are, to be proud to be who they are. The fact that there are so many people out there who would look to someone like Katie Price as a role model is more depressing than anything else, because it means that in the battle between positive and negative views of the modern self (for both men and women, I should add),
negativity is winning. Quite overwhelmingly. It's hard to be anything but sad about that.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Dear Federal Government...
I would like to start by saying that you suck. More coherent and constructive criticism will follow, but the adolescent insult seems like a good way to start.
What's that? WHY do you suck? Well, let me enumerate, in no particular order, the various kinds of fail you people as whole are currently epitomising.
1. Banning bank exit fees/having a single account number that works across all banks
Look, my parents have been in banking for longer than I've been alive. You don't grow up in that kind of environment without learning something. To quote George Negus from tonight's 7pm Project, banks are not a charity, they are a business. Which means, if you remove one means of income from the business (i.e. exit fees) the shortfall will, and indeed must, be made up from elsewhere. In other words, Wayne Swan's calling people who quite rightly point out that the banks will do this "outrageous" is in itself outrageous. It's a denial of reality from a government I suspect will become famous for it.
As for the account number thing, there's actually a quite serious logistical problem there. Your account number is not like a phone number - there is no standard amount of digits, and no single way of organising bank account details. Some banks have six digits, others have nine or more, and apparently there are various squiggly bits involved along with the numbers. Can you imagine the time and cost conflating every bank/credit union/whatever account would take? It seems like a colossal waste (not surprising as it's Gillard and co,) and more to the point, pretty bloody stupid so far as security is concerned. At the moment, if someone hacks your bank details, chances are it's only one account at one bank. A single account number across all the banks would mean all your accounts at all the banks would be hacked and drained. Even if you do only bank at one bank, or have only one account, problems such as recently arose with NAB could and would easily spread throughout the entire banking system, because they'd all have to be linked. An entire nation with their pay cheques frozen. Yep, that's a great idea, Wayne.
2. Still all talk and no action
This one's pretty basic. Before the overthrow of Rudd and the Julia's rise to power, I blogged about how little the government had done since coming to power in 2007. I ought to search that out and just paste it here, because nothing has changed. Think of one thing that has been done - not announced, not promised, not discussed, nor had a committee set up for it. Julia says they'll discuss gay marriage. When? Ooh, in about two years or so. Julia says they'll start implementing the national curriculum. When? Oh, just some bits here and there for now. We'll wait another couple of years before we really get to work on THAT. And the list just goes on. Yes, I know it's fair to say that their hands are tied by the nature of their hold on power, but the fact remains that if they were serious about this whole hand-holding bipartisan bunkum they were spouting when Oakeshott and Windsor picked Labor, and they were serious about the things they want to do, then they would be actively finding ways to do them, because if nothing else, it would play well for them. But they're not - they're only interested in hanging on to their jobs, and hiding the fact that they don't currently have the funds to do any of it.
3. Failure to punish for failure
Has anyone but me noticed that Peter Garrett is, for all intents and purposes, Education Minister now? The guy mismanaged a simple insulation scheme so badly that it was rorted beyond belief, and had tragic consequences for four young men. And yet they give him a portfolio containing a scheme that was itself badly exploited by various unscrupulous persons and only slightly less poorly managed by the woman who is now our Prime Minister.
And Rudd, as we all know, has been given Foreign Affairs. He's probably quite good at it, because he was a diplomat. But the fact is, those same diplomatic qualities are the reason why he was such a shit PM. He fed us nothing but buzzwords and spin, and the Labor Party rightly ousted him for it. But to let him then take a central role in the new government is an act of brazen stupidity, no matter how well suited Rudd may be. No-one in the Cabinet can possibly feel comfortable with Rudd still in a central role, least of all Gillard. And Rudd can't in conscience trust any one of them, because neither he nor we will ever know exactly who was in on the deal, who supported it privately but backed in him publicly. The man is surrounded by people who he must distrust.
Both of these men are serious weaknesses in the Federal Labor Government, and considering Julia keeps insisting that they're looking to provide stable rule, why both of these obvious instabilities remain in key positions on the front bench is beyond me.
4. Focusing on the small issues/pandering to the media
The small issue here is the R18+ classification for gaming. Now, don't get me wrong, this is important to me and many other people. The idea that adults are essentially banned from accessing adult content is ridiculous, as is the fact that 15-year-olds can currently buy games that would require ID in other countries. But, as issues go, it's not massively important, relative to some of the others needing attention. The NBN is important. Balancing the budget is important. The list goes on and on, but all of these things need attention before something as relatively fringe as gaming classifications is dealt with. This is assuming that the government can only manage one thing at a time, and as I've yet to see anything to the contrary, I think it's a fair assumption. The reasons they are dealing with classification issue are pretty simple - it'd be cheap to do, potentially put more money into the struggling retail sector, and from there into government coffers via tax, they know that they have broad community consensus in support of R18+, and they desperately need to be seen to be acting on at least one issue.
It really is all about appearances over substance with this government, just as it was with the last one. For evidence you need look no further than last week, when our Prime Minister (who, as much as I find her contemptible and useless, does hold the highest governmental office in the country, and thus deserved some respect, if only from herself) seemed to decide it was appropriate and normal for her to join Oprah onstage at Fed Square in front of 50,000 screaming morons. Yes, I know that Oprah has interviewed Barack Obama, but he's a US politician and so actually vaguely relevant to the big-teethed shouty one, especially as she supported him (that's Yank political speak for 'gave him money') during his election campaign. There was no relevance to that meeting, beyond the pictures it gave the news outlets. It made Oprah look good, to get the Prime Minister of Australia, and Gillard's staff must have hoped it'd make the government look good too. Nope. Stupid, stupid, beholden to the media bullshit. Oprah (who I could quite easily write a whole other blog about, simply marvelling at the idiocy and spiritual emptiness of all the people who have essentially allowed our nation to become her private fun park, and who, what's more, are humbled and honoured by this opportunity to lick her boots) has no claim at all on the head of our government's time, even such an incompetent one as Gillard. This government must stop acting like celebrities and start being politicians.
So that is why you suck, Federal Government. Shape up or ship out, because goodness knows your grip on power is pretty bloody weak.
Sincerely,
Me.
What's that? WHY do you suck? Well, let me enumerate, in no particular order, the various kinds of fail you people as whole are currently epitomising.
1. Banning bank exit fees/having a single account number that works across all banks
Look, my parents have been in banking for longer than I've been alive. You don't grow up in that kind of environment without learning something. To quote George Negus from tonight's 7pm Project, banks are not a charity, they are a business. Which means, if you remove one means of income from the business (i.e. exit fees) the shortfall will, and indeed must, be made up from elsewhere. In other words, Wayne Swan's calling people who quite rightly point out that the banks will do this "outrageous" is in itself outrageous. It's a denial of reality from a government I suspect will become famous for it.
As for the account number thing, there's actually a quite serious logistical problem there. Your account number is not like a phone number - there is no standard amount of digits, and no single way of organising bank account details. Some banks have six digits, others have nine or more, and apparently there are various squiggly bits involved along with the numbers. Can you imagine the time and cost conflating every bank/credit union/whatever account would take? It seems like a colossal waste (not surprising as it's Gillard and co,) and more to the point, pretty bloody stupid so far as security is concerned. At the moment, if someone hacks your bank details, chances are it's only one account at one bank. A single account number across all the banks would mean all your accounts at all the banks would be hacked and drained. Even if you do only bank at one bank, or have only one account, problems such as recently arose with NAB could and would easily spread throughout the entire banking system, because they'd all have to be linked. An entire nation with their pay cheques frozen. Yep, that's a great idea, Wayne.
2. Still all talk and no action
This one's pretty basic. Before the overthrow of Rudd and the Julia's rise to power, I blogged about how little the government had done since coming to power in 2007. I ought to search that out and just paste it here, because nothing has changed. Think of one thing that has been done - not announced, not promised, not discussed, nor had a committee set up for it. Julia says they'll discuss gay marriage. When? Ooh, in about two years or so. Julia says they'll start implementing the national curriculum. When? Oh, just some bits here and there for now. We'll wait another couple of years before we really get to work on THAT. And the list just goes on. Yes, I know it's fair to say that their hands are tied by the nature of their hold on power, but the fact remains that if they were serious about this whole hand-holding bipartisan bunkum they were spouting when Oakeshott and Windsor picked Labor, and they were serious about the things they want to do, then they would be actively finding ways to do them, because if nothing else, it would play well for them. But they're not - they're only interested in hanging on to their jobs, and hiding the fact that they don't currently have the funds to do any of it.
3. Failure to punish for failure
Has anyone but me noticed that Peter Garrett is, for all intents and purposes, Education Minister now? The guy mismanaged a simple insulation scheme so badly that it was rorted beyond belief, and had tragic consequences for four young men. And yet they give him a portfolio containing a scheme that was itself badly exploited by various unscrupulous persons and only slightly less poorly managed by the woman who is now our Prime Minister.
And Rudd, as we all know, has been given Foreign Affairs. He's probably quite good at it, because he was a diplomat. But the fact is, those same diplomatic qualities are the reason why he was such a shit PM. He fed us nothing but buzzwords and spin, and the Labor Party rightly ousted him for it. But to let him then take a central role in the new government is an act of brazen stupidity, no matter how well suited Rudd may be. No-one in the Cabinet can possibly feel comfortable with Rudd still in a central role, least of all Gillard. And Rudd can't in conscience trust any one of them, because neither he nor we will ever know exactly who was in on the deal, who supported it privately but backed in him publicly. The man is surrounded by people who he must distrust.
Both of these men are serious weaknesses in the Federal Labor Government, and considering Julia keeps insisting that they're looking to provide stable rule, why both of these obvious instabilities remain in key positions on the front bench is beyond me.
4. Focusing on the small issues/pandering to the media
The small issue here is the R18+ classification for gaming. Now, don't get me wrong, this is important to me and many other people. The idea that adults are essentially banned from accessing adult content is ridiculous, as is the fact that 15-year-olds can currently buy games that would require ID in other countries. But, as issues go, it's not massively important, relative to some of the others needing attention. The NBN is important. Balancing the budget is important. The list goes on and on, but all of these things need attention before something as relatively fringe as gaming classifications is dealt with. This is assuming that the government can only manage one thing at a time, and as I've yet to see anything to the contrary, I think it's a fair assumption. The reasons they are dealing with classification issue are pretty simple - it'd be cheap to do, potentially put more money into the struggling retail sector, and from there into government coffers via tax, they know that they have broad community consensus in support of R18+, and they desperately need to be seen to be acting on at least one issue.
It really is all about appearances over substance with this government, just as it was with the last one. For evidence you need look no further than last week, when our Prime Minister (who, as much as I find her contemptible and useless, does hold the highest governmental office in the country, and thus deserved some respect, if only from herself) seemed to decide it was appropriate and normal for her to join Oprah onstage at Fed Square in front of 50,000 screaming morons. Yes, I know that Oprah has interviewed Barack Obama, but he's a US politician and so actually vaguely relevant to the big-teethed shouty one, especially as she supported him (that's Yank political speak for 'gave him money') during his election campaign. There was no relevance to that meeting, beyond the pictures it gave the news outlets. It made Oprah look good, to get the Prime Minister of Australia, and Gillard's staff must have hoped it'd make the government look good too. Nope. Stupid, stupid, beholden to the media bullshit. Oprah (who I could quite easily write a whole other blog about, simply marvelling at the idiocy and spiritual emptiness of all the people who have essentially allowed our nation to become her private fun park, and who, what's more, are humbled and honoured by this opportunity to lick her boots) has no claim at all on the head of our government's time, even such an incompetent one as Gillard. This government must stop acting like celebrities and start being politicians.
So that is why you suck, Federal Government. Shape up or ship out, because goodness knows your grip on power is pretty bloody weak.
Sincerely,
Me.
Monday, November 29, 2010
A brief word about Ted and John
The Coalition is now in power in Victoria, and being a Liberal voter, this makes me happy. Though I quite liked Brumby himself, (he always struck me as quite a decent guy) there's no denying his government was a shambles. The Year 9 boot camp was particularly ridiculous. Having had that kind of touchy-feely education for my Year 9, I know it doesn't actually work. Myki hardly needs mentioning - my own card works, but no-one else's seems to, and there's a reason why take-up has been so-so - it is still confusing to many people, myself included. And they spent too much bloody money on something that seems quite simple. Then there's the closure of Hazelwood. Thank goodness the Coalition won, because do you know how much power that dirty coal-fired sucker provides to the state? Twenty-five per cent, and Labor (with the Greens egging them on) wanted to shut it off with nothing to take up the slack! It's all well and good to talk about sustainable alternatives like solar and wind. I'm all for these things, but until they are capable of consistently producing power the way existing power plants do, they will not actually be viable alternatives. Isn't it better to wait, and get something right, rather than rush in and get it horribly wrong, wasting billions in the process?
As for Ted and co, well, our new Premier is to me as he is to most Victorians - something of an enigma. No-one seems quite sure what the Liberals will do now - only that they were sick of Labor's mismanagement. In all honesty, Brumby was right to say that Baillieu won because the public was unwilling to stomach another four years of his government. We were sick of Premier Brumby, Deputy Hulls, Mr 'How many floors is it?' Madden and Mr 'Help, I'm lost on a mountain!' Holding. I am willing to stand up here and now and say that though I voted according to my own beliefs, there was no specific policy that made me more Liberal-biased than usual. The fact is that we as a state voted against Labor, not for the Liberals. And imagine that New South Wales and Queensland will do the same when their elections come round.
I just hope the Coalition gets it right, and doesn't create a disaster reminscent of those Ruddy days of yore. It shouldn't be too hard - after all, with the word 'myki' still a byword for 'catastrophic failure', it's not like they've got much to live up to. But I hope very much that Premier Ted and Friends will govern as if they had the best government in the world as their standard - goodness knows Victoria wants, needs, and in truth, deserves a government of that calibre.
As for Ted and co, well, our new Premier is to me as he is to most Victorians - something of an enigma. No-one seems quite sure what the Liberals will do now - only that they were sick of Labor's mismanagement. In all honesty, Brumby was right to say that Baillieu won because the public was unwilling to stomach another four years of his government. We were sick of Premier Brumby, Deputy Hulls, Mr 'How many floors is it?' Madden and Mr 'Help, I'm lost on a mountain!' Holding. I am willing to stand up here and now and say that though I voted according to my own beliefs, there was no specific policy that made me more Liberal-biased than usual. The fact is that we as a state voted against Labor, not for the Liberals. And imagine that New South Wales and Queensland will do the same when their elections come round.
I just hope the Coalition gets it right, and doesn't create a disaster reminscent of those Ruddy days of yore. It shouldn't be too hard - after all, with the word 'myki' still a byword for 'catastrophic failure', it's not like they've got much to live up to. But I hope very much that Premier Ted and Friends will govern as if they had the best government in the world as their standard - goodness knows Victoria wants, needs, and in truth, deserves a government of that calibre.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Love and Marriage (and God, apparently)
As anyone has read my previous post about Alex Stewart (the guy who smoked the Bible and Koran) knows, I don't have a lot of time for a certain kind of atheist. Specifically, the narrow-minded ones who are more antitheist than atheist, who are full of all the hate they deride organised religion for. But we've been through all this.
This morning I was reading the paper and came across severals letter regarding same-sex marriage. What made me mad was this one guy who, wondering why the government should have any say in who marries who, said: "For us atheists, the whole thing is a moot point: we don't get married." The ignorance and stupidity of this statement is dumbfounding.
Once again, we've got someone with that crucial misunderstanding of what being an atheist means. Put simply, no two are the same, no two came to their atheism in the same way, and most importantly, there is no such thing as 'us atheists' because it is not a single unified creed but an individualised world view.
But I guess the real kicker for me was the idea that atheists don't married. This bloke's reasoning was because it's a religious ceremony. Maybe in earlier times, yes, that's all it was. Hell, there have been times when it was little more than a business transaction. There are still places where the latter happens.
However, modern marriage is about love, not God or dowries. The idea that you have to believe in God to get married is ridiculous, and I feel sorry for the guy because he obviously believes on some level that without religion, you can't really have a connection deep enough for marriage. Doesn't the fact that there is a strong movement towards legalising same-sex marriage in this countrry (a movement which I wholeheartedly support, I should add) show that rather than being symbolic of God uniting a man and a woman, it's actually one of the purest forms of expressing lifelong fidelity to another person, regardless of their sex? It's about stepping up and saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and bind your fate to theirs.
This is not to say that when two people love and are committed to one another, it is a foregone conclusion that they should marry. Of course this is not the case. Love takes many forms, and I believe many long-term de facto couples simply find a ceremony unnecessary in the light of all their years together. And if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry, they should be able to. Their connection to one another is no less meaningful and life-affirming than a heterosexual couple's, and the sooner that is recognised legally, the better.
As for atheists getting married, the drop in the number of church weddings and the rise in the use of celebrants shows that people everywhere who don't regard organised religion as important to their relationship are marrying without God or his priests looking on. Frankly, when the right person comes along, I can't see that I'll find any conflict between my atheism and my affection for the man in question. I'll love him, he'll love me, and I don't see how the fact that marriage is historically a religious ceremony is any impediment to that hypothetical wedding. It's not like God's going to stand up at the 'or forever hold your peace' bit and complain that we didn't include him!
So, yes, man in the newspaper, one day I fully intend to be a married atheist. I hope that doesn't completely blow your mind. Oh, and by the way, you, sir, are an idiot.
This morning I was reading the paper and came across severals letter regarding same-sex marriage. What made me mad was this one guy who, wondering why the government should have any say in who marries who, said: "For us atheists, the whole thing is a moot point: we don't get married." The ignorance and stupidity of this statement is dumbfounding.
Once again, we've got someone with that crucial misunderstanding of what being an atheist means. Put simply, no two are the same, no two came to their atheism in the same way, and most importantly, there is no such thing as 'us atheists' because it is not a single unified creed but an individualised world view.
But I guess the real kicker for me was the idea that atheists don't married. This bloke's reasoning was because it's a religious ceremony. Maybe in earlier times, yes, that's all it was. Hell, there have been times when it was little more than a business transaction. There are still places where the latter happens.
However, modern marriage is about love, not God or dowries. The idea that you have to believe in God to get married is ridiculous, and I feel sorry for the guy because he obviously believes on some level that without religion, you can't really have a connection deep enough for marriage. Doesn't the fact that there is a strong movement towards legalising same-sex marriage in this countrry (a movement which I wholeheartedly support, I should add) show that rather than being symbolic of God uniting a man and a woman, it's actually one of the purest forms of expressing lifelong fidelity to another person, regardless of their sex? It's about stepping up and saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and bind your fate to theirs.
This is not to say that when two people love and are committed to one another, it is a foregone conclusion that they should marry. Of course this is not the case. Love takes many forms, and I believe many long-term de facto couples simply find a ceremony unnecessary in the light of all their years together. And if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry, they should be able to. Their connection to one another is no less meaningful and life-affirming than a heterosexual couple's, and the sooner that is recognised legally, the better.
As for atheists getting married, the drop in the number of church weddings and the rise in the use of celebrants shows that people everywhere who don't regard organised religion as important to their relationship are marrying without God or his priests looking on. Frankly, when the right person comes along, I can't see that I'll find any conflict between my atheism and my affection for the man in question. I'll love him, he'll love me, and I don't see how the fact that marriage is historically a religious ceremony is any impediment to that hypothetical wedding. It's not like God's going to stand up at the 'or forever hold your peace' bit and complain that we didn't include him!
So, yes, man in the newspaper, one day I fully intend to be a married atheist. I hope that doesn't completely blow your mind. Oh, and by the way, you, sir, are an idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)