:\ = joke at someone's expense, potentially hurtful to reasonable person
:) = joke at someone's expense, silly enough not to be hurtful to reasonable person
:D = witty and insightful enough that a reasonable person will probably retell it
:( = joke at my expense
:O = otherwise-reasonable person heard my witty and insightful joke and is pissed
Friday, November 4, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Girl power, through knee-jerk violence?
I understand that Stephenie Meyer's writing is not everyone's cup of tea. Even though it saddens me that so many fans of the sci-fi/fantasy/horror genre cut themselves off from enjoying her work for the sake of following a bandwagon of scorn... in the context of choosing from among the many offerings of pop culture, I'm content to let it be.
But in the arena of feminist literary criticism, the persistent misreading of the "Twilight" text (both the books and the films) is striking me as simply irresponsible. Not only from a literary standpoint, but also, even more so, from a feminist one. Frankly, it's not just the gun- and stake-toting butt-kickers that feminism needs to reach right now -- it's the gentle, if moody, introverts who need to know that they can be feminists too. And the "Twilight" bashing in feminist circles can only serve to drive them away from the empowerment they desperately need.
Personally, I love the "Buffy vs. Edward: Twilight Remixed" mashup by Jonathan McIntosh. It's thought-provoking, hilarious at times, and generally well-done. Standing alone, McIntosh's metaphor could be a legitimate force in the battle to win the hearts of girls and women to the task of standing up for themselves and each other. But here's the thing: rather than admit the extent to which the "Twilight" clips are taken out of context, McIntosh goes on in his commentary to berate Meyer's saga as employing "sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes" -- a foil for the "pro-feminist," girl-power magnificence that is Buffy.
This is a problem. You see, when you take someone with a different perspective and "other" them, making them into an opponent, and then proceed to take their views out of context to bolster your own claims by comparison, you have lost intellectual integrity. And you have done to your opponent what patriarchalists do to feminists all the time.
The usual feminist charges against "Twilight" rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the central conflict. "Remix" overemphasizes the "stalker" behavior of Edward and makes it look like he is trying to trap his love interest. But in the original film, Bella is not asking him, "Why won't you leave me alone?" She's asking, "Why are you avoiding me? Why do you hate me?" And his answer is basically, "I don't hate you, but I am avoiding you, because I don't want to hurt you." Edward is not a selfish boyfriend. He's a SUPERNATURAL CREATURE, remember?
This is not a story about male dominance and female submission, man vs. woman. It is a tale of supernatural power and human strength, monster vs. person within the same character, more obviously for Edward the vampire, but also more subtly for Bella the wannabe vampire. She wants to be invulnerable, but there is a risk to her soul that goes along with immortality (as the book sets up the dilemma). Not only theologically, as Edward fears (mostly based on ignorance). But also in very practical ramifications for Bella's everyday life: what would she be like if she crossed over? Would she be strong enough to set aside her predatory instincts as top-of-the-food-chain, and protect the humans as the Cullens do? Or would she be overcome by the rage of the newborn, posing a threat even to the humans she loves?
It is Bella's feminine desire that is at the heart of the saga. She is not a super-woman who follows the traditional Hollywood narrative (hero sets goal, hero pursues goal, hero achieves or fails to achieve goal). This is what makes her so compelling: Bella not only subverts patriarchy (which says her desires don't matter), but also the brand of feminism that tells her that in order to be taken seriously as a woman, she has to behave like a stereotypical macho-man. Bella actually goes through a period of depression in "New Moon" -- not my favorite book of the series, and the film version I found excruciating to watch. Yet I admire Chris Weitz, the male director, for staying true to Meyer's vision (despite the tremendous amount of undeserved flack I am sure he is getting). Bella doesn't always make the right choices (that is sort of the point of a story that employs elements of the cautionary tale!) But she always remains true to herself. She remains Bella. As a budding feminist, I embrace Bella as a different kind of heroine. Yes, many starry-eyed devotees of the actors may miss many of the important thematic points of "Twilight." But the grownups who care about these fans need to do better.
It's time to get off the soapbox and recognize that feminism has a potential ally, a strong ally, in Stephenie Meyer... if not a sycophant.
"Buffy vs. Edward: Twilight Remixed," by Jonathan McIntosh, may be watched at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM
But in the arena of feminist literary criticism, the persistent misreading of the "Twilight" text (both the books and the films) is striking me as simply irresponsible. Not only from a literary standpoint, but also, even more so, from a feminist one. Frankly, it's not just the gun- and stake-toting butt-kickers that feminism needs to reach right now -- it's the gentle, if moody, introverts who need to know that they can be feminists too. And the "Twilight" bashing in feminist circles can only serve to drive them away from the empowerment they desperately need.
Personally, I love the "Buffy vs. Edward: Twilight Remixed" mashup by Jonathan McIntosh. It's thought-provoking, hilarious at times, and generally well-done. Standing alone, McIntosh's metaphor could be a legitimate force in the battle to win the hearts of girls and women to the task of standing up for themselves and each other. But here's the thing: rather than admit the extent to which the "Twilight" clips are taken out of context, McIntosh goes on in his commentary to berate Meyer's saga as employing "sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes" -- a foil for the "pro-feminist," girl-power magnificence that is Buffy.
This is a problem. You see, when you take someone with a different perspective and "other" them, making them into an opponent, and then proceed to take their views out of context to bolster your own claims by comparison, you have lost intellectual integrity. And you have done to your opponent what patriarchalists do to feminists all the time.
The usual feminist charges against "Twilight" rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the central conflict. "Remix" overemphasizes the "stalker" behavior of Edward and makes it look like he is trying to trap his love interest. But in the original film, Bella is not asking him, "Why won't you leave me alone?" She's asking, "Why are you avoiding me? Why do you hate me?" And his answer is basically, "I don't hate you, but I am avoiding you, because I don't want to hurt you." Edward is not a selfish boyfriend. He's a SUPERNATURAL CREATURE, remember?
This is not a story about male dominance and female submission, man vs. woman. It is a tale of supernatural power and human strength, monster vs. person within the same character, more obviously for Edward the vampire, but also more subtly for Bella the wannabe vampire. She wants to be invulnerable, but there is a risk to her soul that goes along with immortality (as the book sets up the dilemma). Not only theologically, as Edward fears (mostly based on ignorance). But also in very practical ramifications for Bella's everyday life: what would she be like if she crossed over? Would she be strong enough to set aside her predatory instincts as top-of-the-food-chain, and protect the humans as the Cullens do? Or would she be overcome by the rage of the newborn, posing a threat even to the humans she loves?
It is Bella's feminine desire that is at the heart of the saga. She is not a super-woman who follows the traditional Hollywood narrative (hero sets goal, hero pursues goal, hero achieves or fails to achieve goal). This is what makes her so compelling: Bella not only subverts patriarchy (which says her desires don't matter), but also the brand of feminism that tells her that in order to be taken seriously as a woman, she has to behave like a stereotypical macho-man. Bella actually goes through a period of depression in "New Moon" -- not my favorite book of the series, and the film version I found excruciating to watch. Yet I admire Chris Weitz, the male director, for staying true to Meyer's vision (despite the tremendous amount of undeserved flack I am sure he is getting). Bella doesn't always make the right choices (that is sort of the point of a story that employs elements of the cautionary tale!) But she always remains true to herself. She remains Bella. As a budding feminist, I embrace Bella as a different kind of heroine. Yes, many starry-eyed devotees of the actors may miss many of the important thematic points of "Twilight." But the grownups who care about these fans need to do better.
It's time to get off the soapbox and recognize that feminism has a potential ally, a strong ally, in Stephenie Meyer... if not a sycophant.
"Buffy vs. Edward: Twilight Remixed," by Jonathan McIntosh, may be watched at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM
Sunday, February 13, 2011
immediate obedience
"What, back so soon, sacredcowtipper?" Oh yeah. This is important.
I am becoming more and more convinced that I should not "immediately obey" spiritual messages in my heart, out of a notion that "anything short of immediate obedience is disobedience to God." That, to me, seems like a recipe for allowing an unholy spirit of fear or anxiety to control me (based on the types of messages -- feelings of anxiety -- that I have sensed from time to time).
God tells us through Scripture to "test the spirits" (1John 4:1-6). That does not sound like a command for immediate obedience to me. Perhaps the confusion stems from verse 6: "We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (NASB). I can see how this verse could be misused to say, "trust every preacher who references Scripture, thus claiming to listen to the apostles; distrust everyone who disagrees with such preachers." But I think a better lesson is this: every true prophet (or spirit) will agree with God's Word.
Why would God allow his adopted children to be oppressed by evil spirits and false prophets? Maybe so it will force us to keep checking back with Him. Which requires faith in His almighty strength to overcome our fallible human perceptions, and get through to us.
Beloved children, trust in our Father, even when you cannot trust yourself.
Love,
sacredcowtipper
I am becoming more and more convinced that I should not "immediately obey" spiritual messages in my heart, out of a notion that "anything short of immediate obedience is disobedience to God." That, to me, seems like a recipe for allowing an unholy spirit of fear or anxiety to control me (based on the types of messages -- feelings of anxiety -- that I have sensed from time to time).
God tells us through Scripture to "test the spirits" (1John 4:1-6). That does not sound like a command for immediate obedience to me. Perhaps the confusion stems from verse 6: "We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (NASB). I can see how this verse could be misused to say, "trust every preacher who references Scripture, thus claiming to listen to the apostles; distrust everyone who disagrees with such preachers." But I think a better lesson is this: every true prophet (or spirit) will agree with God's Word.
Why would God allow his adopted children to be oppressed by evil spirits and false prophets? Maybe so it will force us to keep checking back with Him. Which requires faith in His almighty strength to overcome our fallible human perceptions, and get through to us.
Beloved children, trust in our Father, even when you cannot trust yourself.
Love,
sacredcowtipper
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Listening to you (I get the music)
Well, I already admitted to having my own sacred cows, so I thought I might as well confess one that has been big in my life. Music. "My only friend through teenage nights." (Okay, Queen was talking about radio specifically, but back then I figured radio *had* had its finest hour, and mix tapes were the way to go.)
I was raised on the arena rock of the early 70s and early 80s, with my tastes leaning decidedly toward progressive sounds, thanks to Rush's "Tom Sawyer." (Well, technically I was raised on the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack by my parents, but I say it doesn't count until I started doing the picking). Through the rest of the 80s, I glommed onto Heavy Metal and Alternative with equal glee, then was enchanted when Grunge seemed to meld the two in the early 90s. My fascination wore off quickly, though, as Alternative music crushed the emerging Blues Metal scene I loved and became the behemoth genre I still like to refer to as "No-Alternative." In frustration, I flirted briefly with Brit Pop, then met Jesus and threw myself into CCM.
The mid-90's were sort of my years of walking in the musical wilderness. There were times when I felt led by the Holy Spirit to give up secular music entirely. What I had been listening to just felt antagonistic to everything I was trying to learn about my new faith. I listened to bands like King's X and The Ocean Blue, whose music had overtones of faith, as well as The 77s, the black sheep of CCM. But mostly I tried very hard to like bands like The Newsboys, D.C. Talk and Jars of Clay. Meanwhile, I took vacations away from my beloved blues metal bands, and sometimes turned the stereo off entirely, so I could listen to God better. Now I know that what I was going through was a season of fasting.
After growing in my faith and listening to different perspectives, I became convinced that I had the freedom to listen to secular music -- but that music in general resonated with me so much, that I had turned it into an idol at times in my life. I resolved to enjoy music thenceforth with gratitude, thanking God for the gift but recognizing it as a created thing.
The late 90s influx of indie (and quasi-indie) bands helped me fall in love with music all over again. Plankeye is about the best-known band I love from that period. When I first heard Dumpster's "See Through Me," I didn't think much about it... but then I listened to it with headphones. Oh. My. From then on, I didn't see any point in listening to music I couldn't absolutely freakin' love. Next came Dear Ephesus, and then the musical love of my life, Puller. (*NOT* to be confused with Pillar. Don't you dare.) What the heck is post-hardcore? I have no idea, but I have heard the term used to describe Puller. Lush lo-fi. Garage rock sounds, used to atmospheric effect. Yep, I like it. And when interesting music is combined with powerful, authentic lyrics about the not-always-pretty life of following Jesus... wow. Just wow.
Of course, all my favorite bands broke up in the early 2000s. But that's okay. Interesting bands keep on coming out. Mew and Death Cab for Cutie are simply amazing. And now Pandora helps me find new favorites all the time. Maybe a form of radio *has* yet to have its finest hour.
All this, not to say that sacredcowtipper consistently displays the musical taste of teenage boys through the decades, but that music gives human beings a chance to revel in the creativity God gave us as His image-bearers. And as one who is definitely more a reveler than a creator in this particular art form, I'm off to compose a Top Albums of All Time list...
Love,
sacredcowtipper
I was raised on the arena rock of the early 70s and early 80s, with my tastes leaning decidedly toward progressive sounds, thanks to Rush's "Tom Sawyer." (Well, technically I was raised on the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack by my parents, but I say it doesn't count until I started doing the picking). Through the rest of the 80s, I glommed onto Heavy Metal and Alternative with equal glee, then was enchanted when Grunge seemed to meld the two in the early 90s. My fascination wore off quickly, though, as Alternative music crushed the emerging Blues Metal scene I loved and became the behemoth genre I still like to refer to as "No-Alternative." In frustration, I flirted briefly with Brit Pop, then met Jesus and threw myself into CCM.
The mid-90's were sort of my years of walking in the musical wilderness. There were times when I felt led by the Holy Spirit to give up secular music entirely. What I had been listening to just felt antagonistic to everything I was trying to learn about my new faith. I listened to bands like King's X and The Ocean Blue, whose music had overtones of faith, as well as The 77s, the black sheep of CCM. But mostly I tried very hard to like bands like The Newsboys, D.C. Talk and Jars of Clay. Meanwhile, I took vacations away from my beloved blues metal bands, and sometimes turned the stereo off entirely, so I could listen to God better. Now I know that what I was going through was a season of fasting.
After growing in my faith and listening to different perspectives, I became convinced that I had the freedom to listen to secular music -- but that music in general resonated with me so much, that I had turned it into an idol at times in my life. I resolved to enjoy music thenceforth with gratitude, thanking God for the gift but recognizing it as a created thing.
The late 90s influx of indie (and quasi-indie) bands helped me fall in love with music all over again. Plankeye is about the best-known band I love from that period. When I first heard Dumpster's "See Through Me," I didn't think much about it... but then I listened to it with headphones. Oh. My. From then on, I didn't see any point in listening to music I couldn't absolutely freakin' love. Next came Dear Ephesus, and then the musical love of my life, Puller. (*NOT* to be confused with Pillar. Don't you dare.) What the heck is post-hardcore? I have no idea, but I have heard the term used to describe Puller. Lush lo-fi. Garage rock sounds, used to atmospheric effect. Yep, I like it. And when interesting music is combined with powerful, authentic lyrics about the not-always-pretty life of following Jesus... wow. Just wow.
Of course, all my favorite bands broke up in the early 2000s. But that's okay. Interesting bands keep on coming out. Mew and Death Cab for Cutie are simply amazing. And now Pandora helps me find new favorites all the time. Maybe a form of radio *has* yet to have its finest hour.
All this, not to say that sacredcowtipper consistently displays the musical taste of teenage boys through the decades, but that music gives human beings a chance to revel in the creativity God gave us as His image-bearers. And as one who is definitely more a reveler than a creator in this particular art form, I'm off to compose a Top Albums of All Time list...
Love,
sacredcowtipper
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Turf Wars
Ever feel like you were caught in the middle of a battle zone at church? Like, there were two mighty opposing forces competing for the heart and soul of the Body of Christ, but on the surface at least, it didn't look like God and Satan? It seems like everywhere I go these days (and I've gotten around - to heck with the warnings against church shopping, that's a whole 'nother post), people are in the business of remaking other people in their image.
I understand the temptation. You start out trying to be more like Christ. You do the best you can to add more virtues to your repertoire, or subtract your worst vices. But whether you take the path of construction or the one of deconstruction, it takes investment. A lot of commitment, time, effort, and most of all, coming to the point where you are willing to do for Christ what you otherwise would not be willing to do.
And then some fellow believer comes along and has the gall to possess the freedom in Christ to do the opposite of what you have worked so hard to accomplish. How dare they?!?!?
Get enough advocates from opposing efforts together in the same church, and you have the makings of a turf war. Complementarians vs. Egalitarians. New Earth vs. Old Earth Creationists. Calvinists vs. Arminians. Keepin' It Real Crew vs. The Joy Police. The list goes on. And on. And on. But in a turf war, if either side wins, in a way God loses. Or at least has a lot more pain, lies and ugliness to work through in bringing about His victory. Guess Satan is at work after all. Why do we all labor so hard to help him out?
What if we trusted God to indwell people who didn't look, think, and behave like us? What if we trusted Him to teach us through the people we would prefer to change? What if, instead of trying to eliminate threats, we invested ourselves in striving to make sure not one of His sheep was lost?
That, I think, is what true unity would look like. But it would require laying down our right to tell God who His sheep are.
God will sort out the goats. Let's knock down some sacred cows instead. ("Mooooo.")
Love,
sacredcowtipper
I understand the temptation. You start out trying to be more like Christ. You do the best you can to add more virtues to your repertoire, or subtract your worst vices. But whether you take the path of construction or the one of deconstruction, it takes investment. A lot of commitment, time, effort, and most of all, coming to the point where you are willing to do for Christ what you otherwise would not be willing to do.
And then some fellow believer comes along and has the gall to possess the freedom in Christ to do the opposite of what you have worked so hard to accomplish. How dare they?!?!?
Get enough advocates from opposing efforts together in the same church, and you have the makings of a turf war. Complementarians vs. Egalitarians. New Earth vs. Old Earth Creationists. Calvinists vs. Arminians. Keepin' It Real Crew vs. The Joy Police. The list goes on. And on. And on. But in a turf war, if either side wins, in a way God loses. Or at least has a lot more pain, lies and ugliness to work through in bringing about His victory. Guess Satan is at work after all. Why do we all labor so hard to help him out?
What if we trusted God to indwell people who didn't look, think, and behave like us? What if we trusted Him to teach us through the people we would prefer to change? What if, instead of trying to eliminate threats, we invested ourselves in striving to make sure not one of His sheep was lost?
That, I think, is what true unity would look like. But it would require laying down our right to tell God who His sheep are.
God will sort out the goats. Let's knock down some sacred cows instead. ("Mooooo.")
Love,
sacredcowtipper
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Taking the Bible literally
Originally I conceived this blog as an opportunity to tear down strongholds in the Christian subculture. But there is plenty of material in the world at large, so I am no longer committed to focusing on sacred cows of the Christian variety.
But there's a really big one that needs a rest, so here goes...
HIYAAAAAAAAA! ("MooooooooooOOOOOOOO?") *thud*
In Scripture, statements are not necessarily "promises," imperatives are not necessarily "commands," and descriptions are not necessarily proscriptions.
You're welcome.
Love,
sacredcowtipper
But there's a really big one that needs a rest, so here goes...
HIYAAAAAAAAA! ("MooooooooooOOOOOOOO?") *thud*
In Scripture, statements are not necessarily "promises," imperatives are not necessarily "commands," and descriptions are not necessarily proscriptions.
You're welcome.
Love,
sacredcowtipper
Thursday, October 28, 2010
What is this "blogging" of which you speak?
Okay, so my big plan was to write like at least ten entries before I ever presumed to actually try to create such a momentous responsibility as a blog. I mean, my track record for productivity is not exactly stellar. So, backlog before weblog, yes? That's okay, you don't have to think that was funny.
But I'm finding it remarkably convenient at the moment to create a blog, for reasons that have little to do with blogging. So here goes. I am a total noob. And I choose to wear my noob-ness as a badge of honor, because pride is one of those sacred cows that fills me with this... mad... urge...
HIYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! ("MoooOOOOOOOO?") *THUD*
Let the tippin' commence.
Love,
sacredcowtipper
P.S. How many blog entry arrows have I tucked in my quiver, you may ask? Zero, of course. None. Nil. Goose egg.
But I'm finding it remarkably convenient at the moment to create a blog, for reasons that have little to do with blogging. So here goes. I am a total noob. And I choose to wear my noob-ness as a badge of honor, because pride is one of those sacred cows that fills me with this... mad... urge...
HIYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! ("MoooOOOOOOOO?") *THUD*
Let the tippin' commence.
Love,
sacredcowtipper
P.S. How many blog entry arrows have I tucked in my quiver, you may ask? Zero, of course. None. Nil. Goose egg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)