Happy Birthday: My Comic Strip

This first one is new.  The second one is old.  I think they convey my entirely healthy view of birthdays.

(Click to see them bigger.)

|

Canaan

Happy Post-Thanksgiving.  Move on.  You aren’t special.  Gezuz.

I wonder, where is your favorite place to live?

I get asked that a lot, especially when I’ve first moved to a new city (or moved relatively recently).

“So, how does ‘City Z’ compare to the other cities you’ve lived in?”

Each city has its own personalities.  And the fact is, I could live my entire life in one city and not experience everything there is to experience in any given city.  Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco?  These cities have too much to offer for me to succinctly summarize them in a year’s time.  Likewise, anyone who thinks their experience of a city is ‘full’ is a moron, no matter how much time they have spent there.

I experienced clubs (gay and straight), random house parties and numerous bands in the year I lived in Philadelphia, but that doesn’t mean I know the city.  Meanwhile, a person who lived in Philly all their life will go to their grave having missed out on innumerable experiences.  Life is too varied to ever believe you’ve ’seen it all.’

After all I’ve seen, my favorite city is still the one I’ve never officially lived in: New York City.

I will die having never experienced everything that NYC has to offer.  Even once I’ve lived there for 10 years, I will not know all the positive aspects of the city, nor will I know all the negatives.  So much of what a person experiences (in a  city, relationship, job, etc.) is based on expectations.  I have lived so much of my uninformed life believing in the unseen promise of the great NYC.  But the kicker is that, no matter what happens to me in life, I will likely always think of New York as the Promised Land.

Good.

Maybe my belief is based in naiveté, but who cares?  I’ve had some great times in that city, and I’ve seen some unprepared bumpkins be completely overwhelmed by it (there is a reason I prefer to travel to New York by my lonesome).  It makes me happy to know that, despite all the poison reality will try to inject, New York City will forever remain the home I was meant to find.

So where is your Canaan?  Where do you wish to be?  Not just physically, but in general?  Name the place/career/relationship/home you wish was yours.  Some will dismiss this kind of hope as silly optimism, but living for the Promised Land is a powerful motivator.

If it weren’t for NYC, 10 cities in 10 years would be a pathetic, suicidal dream.  My endgame makes every part of my stupid goal worth it.

So, what is that goal in your life?  What is the one thing in front of you that makes taking a risk worth it for you?

And what if you don’t have a reason to take a risk in your life?  What’s the point?

Life without risk is a rotten fruit.  Do you have a reason to live?

Pursue it.

Let’s go down the waterfall, have ourselves a good time

I hear it all the time: “You’re so hot.”  Wait, no, that’s not what I meant to say.  I mean, it’s true, but… Let me start over.

I hear it all the time: “You should be nicer.”  This advice is in reference to the way I come across when I debate matters such as the existence of God (that’s a negative) or the facts of evolution (that’s an affirmative).  If you’ve read anything I’ve ever written in which I have a point of view, I think you’ll know what these well-intentioned people are getting at.  I come off like a huge, pompous asshole (I’m well aware of this).

And I certainly get their (your?) point.  “But Jerome,” they’re saying (which is bizarre, because my name isn’t Jerome), “you argue so adamantly for your point of view, you obviously want people to agree with you.  And as that old saying goes, ‘You catch more flies with honey’.” [fuck you] “Why not be cordial, make some accommodations in your debates?  You know, say things like, ‘I see what you’re saying and it makes sense, but have you considered…?’  That way, they know you’re considering what they’re saying and they won’t be so defensive.  You know that when people feel insulted they are less willing to listen to what you have to say.”

Now, pretty much everything they’re saying is true.  Certainly, no one wants to feel insulted, and no one is ever going to be insulted into changing their mind.  So, really, shouldn’t I be nicer?  Gosh.

Well, there’s a problem with their point.  You see, they’ve predicated their advice on the notion that I’m seeking converts.  They assume that I care if the rest of the world does or doesn’t believe in God or does and doesn’t accept evolution as fact.  If you think that’s why I’m arguing these topics, you’ve missed the point.

Imagine a guy came up to you and said, “The earth is flat.”  He didn’t just claim it, he gleefully pronounced it and emphatically insisted that there was almost no evidence for a ’round’ earth and what evidence existed was weak and had lots of gaps in it.  In fact, a lot of the evidence for a round earth was really proof that the earth had to be flat.  How would you respond?

I’m actually interested.  This isn’t a hypothetical where I’m trying to get you to admit that you’d berate the guy.  You very well might be super nice and cordial and lay out all the evidence as gently as the Michelin Man giving a handjob (you’re welcome).  Good for you.  You’ve just wasted an hour or two of your life.  You’ve not convinced him of your point of view, but good for you, some idiot thinks you’re a really nice fellow.

I, on the other hand, spent that same hour or two talking down to this dummy, mocking him in so many ways he wasn’t even entirely sure about all the different ways I had insulted him.  (At one point I went through four rounds of the dozens without him even noticing.)  At the end of our ‘conversation’ he is no more convinced than he was after yours.  The only difference is that I had more fun.

Now, you might say, “So you just get in debates to insult people?”  No, I do it because I like to debate and enjoy the intellectual challenge.  Insulting people is just a perk.

You might then say, “So you think anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is an idiot on the level of flat-earthers?”  Well, yes and no.  People like Ken Hamm and Michael Behe are idiots of the highest order (seriously, they’ve got medals).  Now, your average person just living their life who maybe hasn’t given much thought to evolution or has looked into it but found so much confounding back and forth that they don’t know what to think and thus don’t accept evolution as fact:  No, they aren’t idiots.  Unlike flat-earthers, the debate over evolution has (inexplicably) blown up into a contentious topic.  While the science that evolution rests on is firm and provable (over and over again), the mechanism of lies and misdirection that the religious right (and, often, political right) uses to undermine the scientific facts is pervasive and strong.  Anyone can be tricked by it, including intelligent, educated people.  Back in my pre-college days, I was an evolution-denier (or ‘history-denier’ as Dawkins would put it).

All the same, if a person isn’t intellectually curious and willing to have their worldview rocked, an I.D.ist (or Creationist or Religionist of any type) is not going to be convinced in a debate with me (despite how compelling and eloquent a speaker I am; and, ridiculously, despite my dashing good looks).  But, I enjoy doing the dance, and if I get to be a bit condescending or insulting in the process, well, bully for me.  Somewhere in the debate, I will inevitably encourage the person to read a few well-written books which will do a much better job at laying out the evidence and will do so in a scholarly, non-insulting way.  If these people in the debate have a legitimate interest in knowing about evolution, they’ll do the work on their own.  (As a counterpoint, no one ever recommends I read a good I.D. book, and that’s because the only person who has written them are Michael Behe, a discredited and laughable ‘biologist’ whose misunderstanding of his own purported area of expertise is embarrassing.)

Now, here you might go one step further and say, “Okay, so feel free to insult anti-evolutionists because you have strong scientific evidence.  But you get just as insulting in discussing God.”  To which I say, “Um, dude, are you stalking me?”

You’re right, I do come off as pretty condescending on the topic of God, a question that I fully admit cannot be ‘proven’ in the scientific meaning of the word.  God may exist, and I accept that is a possibility, but I highly doubt it and think the logical/intellectual evidence against God is too strong to call myself agnostic.  I am an atheist, proud and loud.

Again, though, I come back to the point that I’m not actually trying to convince anyone to give up belief in God.  Granted, I would be happy to see more people come out as atheists, but not so I could feel part of a bigger group.  I think atheism is often the first step on an intellectual journey that leads to great advancement.  Humanity benefits from the kind of intellectual stamina that is often bred of atheism.

I engage in the debate because I want people to question what they believe.  I insult them because, again, I enjoy it, but also because I think it’s fascinating when people whose religion says things like “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds” and “Turn the other cheek” get all riled up and lose their shit.  People would like to claim faith makes them better people, but no one idly sits by when their intelligence is insulted.  I’ve yet to meet a Christian who smilingly accepts an insult and continues on without insulting back (even if passive aggressively) or without shutting down and whining that I’m too mean.

Imagine if Jesus had been like, “Fuck this jerks, I don’t want no goddamn nails up in my shit!  Peace out, bitches!”  (No, really, imagine it.  It’s a funny scene.)

It’s kind of hard to have a martyr complex while refusing to be martyred at the same time.

The final point that any person might make against me is really the only good one: “You insult people, but you don’t like being insulted.  In fact, if someone insults your intelligence, you get belligerent.”  Guess what, you’re right.

But, in my anger, I fight back.  I work harder to make my point.  I become more engaged.  And when we part ways, I’m going to go research more and learn more so I can stand on firmer ground.  I will never insult someone and then immediately walk away and close off conversation.  That’s like hitting someone with a stick and then running and standing behind the teacher.  It’s cowardly and I won’t do that.  In fact, most times I do make an attempt to end a debate on some form of conciliatory note.  I’ve never lost a friend I cared about because of an intellectual debate.

Don’t get the wrong impression.  I don’t go out of my way to insult someone in a debate.  In fact, many times when someone feels insulted it’s really more a reflection of me poking holes in their position and has nothing to do with my tone or what I’m saying.  It’s inevitable that when you debate something that is at the core of a person’s beliefs, any refutation of that person’s views will be insulting.  I will never apologize for someone else’s inferior reasoning.

I simply do not believe that open debate is benefited by pretending to respect each other.  If I’m pulling out a gun and shooting someone, then sure, a little more civility would be in order.  But, a few bon mots and some snappy banter never hurt anyone.

Debating is healthy exercise for the brain, and frankly, if you feel like you’ve entered into one and you cannot handle the competition, maybe it’s because you’ve let yourself get too flabby.

Dumbass.

MYth

I pull down the knight’s armor chain fence on the storefront while you set forth with that penetrating, selfish smile, nameless in this Philadelphia winter, we touch hands and enter into sin like air into blown glass.

For my next trick, I’ll give the rat its tail, the sky its shine, the woman her apple.

This is the evolution of our creation myth.

You echo into the cement with your tap dancing answers to my severe questions with their attention to detail and moonshine delicacy.

This is forever.

We eat slices of greased pig pepper pizza in the pretty, pulsing glow of the drunkards’ last moments before mistakes become unavoidable, unforgettable.

Unforgiveable.

I am careful with my words even as you dismiss every one as noun, verb, pronoun, proverb, homily, allegory, filibuster the floor of our decision making process on which the good senator from Pennsylvania would like to make a motion:

To recess.

Or to renegotiate the terms of our contract.

I am exhausted.

Take you home, take the 34, if it should ever come, take and take and take until the giving comes naturally and I thank you for your patience.

This is normal.

I have brought you to your doorstep, like the magician’s rabbit back into the comforting fold of his infinite hat, and into emptiness you will submerge, affectionate with your goodbyes, a showman even after the curtain.

I know you will call in the morning, the sun will rise.

The sounds of taxis wandering aimless follow me home into the starlight, the clack of their tires over metal grates rises like applause, a grand exit for a good show.

Only to shutter again.  It is 3 am.

For my last trick

This is love.

Jesus Makes Me Want To Cry

Emotional response.  It’s such an easy thing to scorn.  When you’re a callous asshole like me, dismissing emotion is natural.

But, don’t be misled, I love to have my emotions played with.   I’m a sucker for the television season finales with the tragic turn (Wilson loved her!)

We respond to art first and foremost with our emotions.  Whether it be the heartstring yanking ballad, the potent black and white portrait, or the ‘quirky’ indie film with the romantic heart (I admit it, I’m an easy mark for the 500 Days of Away We Go To Garden State type film), even the most hardened art critic must be susceptible to the emotional manipulation of art.  If they aren’t, why be an art critic?  Art should never be approached on a purely intellectual level (though, the best art rewards the intellect as much as it stirs emotions).  It is only after the emotion has washed over us that we can begin to approach any work with an open mind.

You know what packs a real emotional punch?

Christian music.   Yeah, yeah, I know, I love that episode of South Park, too.  A lot of Christian music is schmaltzy trash.  Oodles of it is pure, refined fecal matter and is deserving of the mockery it receives (Stephen Curtis Chapman or Carman, anyone?).  There is a ring of (imaginary) hell reserved for shitty Christian musicians.

But for you cynics out there, let me shock you:  There are good Christian musicians.

It really shouldn’t surprise you, as music (especially in America) has a long history in the church.  It’s only reasonable that talented, articulate musicians would come up out of a Christian upbringing and would write songs that aspired to a greater form of lyricism than “God, you’re the best.” (And I assure you, that lyric isn’t made up.)

I’m sure you’ve all heard of Sufjan Stevens.  Exhibit A.  And B.  And C.  That man is openly Christian, and he’s a brilliant musician and songwriter.  He’s certainly one of the best working in ‘indie’ circles.

I say all of this because in my 7,000+ iTunes song list is a plethora of Christian music, despite the fact that I am an unabashed atheist.  I was raised on the stuff.  No, I don’t have any Michael W. Smith, but I have plenty of Jars of Clay, Delirious? and even some dc Talk.  Do I listen to most of this stuff?  Not really.  When it comes to mp3s, I’m kind of a packrat.  I have songs on my hard drive I haven’t listened to in years, but I still don’t toss.  But, the truth of the matter is, occasionally I do still listen to some of those old Christian bands.

“But why?” You ask.  Or you don’t.  I’m not fucking psychic.

It’s simple: Emotion.

Despite the fact that I no longer have the faith I had when I first listened to that music, these songs still resonate with me emotionally in a similar way.  No, I’m no longer deluded into thinking that a worship song ‘brings me closer to God’, but my emotional memory still kicks in when a particular song comes on and I find it hard to turn off Delirious?’s “Obsession” or Caedmon’s Call’s “Faith My Eyes” if they happen to pop up in the shuffle.  I don’t need to believe in God to feel something from that music.

There’s nothing unusual about it.  How many of you still have an emotional response to some shitty piece of music you liked when you were 12, even though now you’d never be caught dead listening to it in public (I’m looking at all of you that have any Boston on your computer)?  We all do it, the only difference being our personal history.

My personal history just happens to include two decades in a Christian cult.

What’s my point?  Well, firstly, it’s that for all my admiration of cold, unfiltered logic and intelligence, I am not contemptuous of emotion.  A good song can stir enough powerful emotions in me to inspire a poem or short story.

On the other hand, my second point is this:  I don’t trust emotion.

Emotion is not truth.  It is not ‘wrong’ or ‘false’, and it should not be dismissed, but an emotional response is never (I emphasize never) a guide to truth.  Emotion can be a guide to comfort.  Emotion can bring insights.  Emotion can even ’save’ us.  But for all its benefits, emotion is a finicky, easily manipulated evolutionary byproduct, and it should not be trusted.

Religion and emotion go hand and hand.  Upfront, I will say that I’ve heard of people converting to Christianity for intellectual reasons, but those are rare examples and I am suspect of many of them (a person can claim anything).

Most Christians will openly (and proudly) admit that their conversion took place because of emotion.  No, they won’t phrase it that way, but that’s what they’ll mean.

“I was going through a hard time…”

“I had no direction in my life…”

“A close friend had just died…”

“My parents were getting a divorce…”

“I was addicted to alcohol and drugs and living on the streets and I was near death…”

Fill in the blanks.  “…Then a pastor/family member/friend/stranger invited me to church.”  And the rest is history.

Most conversion stories are like this (somebody will comment and say, “My conversion wasn’t like that,” proving once and for all that ‘most’ does not mean all), and there is a reason for that.  Besides for presumably meeting a practical need in many people’s lives, Christianity (or your religion of choice) fills an emotional hole.  We all hit rock bottom (I do twice a month; thank you whiskey!) and in that moment, anything that offers a way up has an opportunity to take root.

Once it has taken root, like any true weed, clipping at the leaves won’t kill the plant.

You’ve heard strong, undeniable evidence for a completely naturalist evolution of life?  God could have started it.

Miracles and prophecies of the past are easily explained away by common sense and understanding of human psychology?  That’s just the way God works.

Prayers that go against nature almost never come true (and when they do, there is usually an obvious explanation for it)?  Sometimes God just answers prayers with a ‘No.’

What all of these responses have in common is a willingness to hold onto a belief despite all contrary evidence and a necessity to keep on believing in something regardless of whether or not any good comes of it.

And this all comes back to the emotional response.  The conversion process, even for the most logical, stoic person in the world is a deeply emotional event.  Nothing stirs the emotions quite like a rollicking church service (if you’ve never been, you should check out a Pentecostal Church service; pure entertainment).  The emotional response to the conversion event is the root of faith, and from there, all intellectual arguments against a person’s faith will fall short because they fail to dig into the ground.

Faith is driven by emotion, pure and simple.  All the ‘Intelligent Design’ advocates and theological seminary students are merely putting shiny, spinning rims on their Honda Civics.

Let me be clear about a few points:  Just as an emotional response doesn’t mean something is true, it doesn’t mean it’s false either.  An emotional response is completely separated from ‘fact’ (which is why I can still enjoy certain Christian songs despite my lack of faith and why some people inexplicably think Carlos Mencia is funny).  Emotion knows no master.

I am also not saying that religion and faith should not be addressed with intellects and fact.  Those were exactly the tools that helped me de-convert.  At the same time, I probably would have de-converted 6 years earlier if it were not for my deep emotional root in the religion.  I had been an atheist for easily 2 years before I even called myself one.

What I am saying is that any honest person will have to admit that emotions can lead us down foolish paths (i.e. chasing after an unattainable girl or following the Grateful Dead across the country), and so any open and honest Religionist must admit that emotion (and by extension, faith) is not a valid or even compelling argument for God.  As well, any atheist/agnostic/skeptic worth his/her salt should know the obvious intellectual arguments against religion so that emotional faith becomes the only footing on which religion stands.

The goal is not to see religion abolished but rather to see it acknowledge its real purpose: An emotional response to an emotional situation.  As long as they keep their religion out of my science and government, I really don’t give a shit what they do.

Then, the Religionist just has to ask themself, what’s an emotion worth?

Elroy Berdahl

Now, Elroy, you’ve been scaring me into believing
Got your ash gray elbows and your stark white eyebrows set to the wind
Look at me when you say those words
“I can’t.”
Tell me about the war, you know who lost, you know I don’t want to fight
So set sail, Jesus did, so set sail, make do with chicken shit and heaven sent
That’s the life

Now, Elroy, you’ve seen your woman make peace
She blamed the Lord for seasons of shame and touched your wet cheeks
Look at me when I say these words
“I can’t.”
All of heaven is a ribbon she ties her hair with and God only a shadow of his former self
So sleep sound, Judas did, so sleep sound, let the ancients argue over prophecy
That’s not life

Now, Elroy, you’ve been dying under the sun
A pile of crumpled leaves and dried grass set aflame with salvation wind
Look at me when you have no words
“I can’t.”
Your folk legend comes closest to any truth I’ve ever known, braver than my bravest lie
So stand still, Elroy Berdahl, now stand still, if the guns must fire, don’t give up hope
It’s only life

*

Bible Verse Bumperstickers

Let’s face it, people just don’t read the Bible like they should these days.  Here in America (a Christian nation), people don’t always find the time to connect with the ‘Good Book.’

For that reason, I’ve created some bumperstickers (or T-shirt designs or anything else you might want to put these on) that take God’s Word and condense it down to its true message.  These combine the two best ways to read the Bible: Pulling verses out of context and interpreting them for personal convenience.

My first design is based on 1 Corinthians 14:34, which rightly asserts God’s intended Gender Roles:

“…Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

That’s nice and all, but that verse is just too darn wordy.  My bumpersticker makes it more concise (and keeps the heart of the message):

That’s just good Bibling.

Here are 4 more designs.  Display them with pride, let’s put God back in our nation.  (Click on the images to see them in all their fully sized holy glory.)

*

*

*

God Bless!

Ben Stein Is a Huge Douche Bag

Admit it, you used to love Ben Stein.  He was the “Bueller, Bueller, Bueller” guy:

In retrospect, it’s sort of the least funny part of that movie now that we know that Ben Stein wasn’t playing a character, he was just playing himself.  But still, everyone knows, “Anyone… Anyone?”

And then he went on to host “Win Ben Stein’s Money”, a show that asked genuinely tough questions and was co-hosted by Jimmy Kimmel (who dated Sarah Silverman, so by the effects of transference, Ben Stein should be at least kind of cool.)

Unrelated Sarah Silverman clip:

Forget the fact that he’s a staunch Republican who wrote speeches for Richard Nixon.  He was fiscally conservative, and that’s a legitimate point of view even if you do not particularly share it (and as a communist, I don’t).  His politics never seemed all that paramount to his public figure (in my lifetime), so I could enjoy him for his droll pop culture appearances.

So what happened?  Why is that now everytime I see Ben Stein in those ads with Shaq I want to punch the screen?  When did he cross over from being a mildly amusing public figure to an all out frontrunner for The Biggest Douche in The Universe Award?

Well, first off, there is this:

No, I don’t expect you to watch it all.  Just know that this is Stein’s ‘documentary,’ Expelled, arguing in support of Intelligence Design (never has a descriptor been so ironic).  In this movie, Ben Stein and the filmmakers intentionally misrepresent the case for ID by implying that wackjob ’scientists’ who have fallen out of favor for their categorically wrong views are really just martyrs for truth.  There is nothing wrong with a documentary having a point of view, all of them do.  There is something wrong, however, with abusing facts and lying to participants in your film so that real scientists (i.e. PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins) don’t know what they are being interviewed for.  A discussion of all the movie’s faults have been legion and so there’s nothing more for me to offer*, other than to say, “Benny, you’re a fine douche.”

As much as Stein’s ID stance annoys the living shit out of me, I think his douche-baggyness is taken to an astronomical level when you consider who he is a spokesperson for: FreeScore.com.

This is one of those annoying credit report sites (like the one with the atrocious singing moron commericals), where they promise you free credit scores from 3 of the top credit reporting agencies in the country.  Of course, if you sign up for them, you won’t actually get any important information.  You get a score, but not the report behind the score which is all that matters, and for that you have to pay an extra $30.

That’s all well and fine (plenty of businesses work that way: offer you something free to entice you in for the real purchase), unless you are an informed consumer who knows that every American citizen, by law, is allowed free access to their credit reports once a year.  These companies are charging you to get information that you are open to get for free.  They call themselves FreeCreditReport.com and similar names so that uninformed (or simply confused) consumers think they are getting something for, you know, FREE!

It’s a scam, and Ben Stein, so-called “Economist and Financial Writer” (not anymore) knows it.  In a day and age where every politician, celebrity and hand puppet is speaking on behalf of “Real Americans who are losing their jobs and in financial straits,” Stein’s alignment with such a blatant rip-off puts him on the top of the Douche Bag list.   So, um, hey, congrats!

Sorry John Edwards, you can’t win every year.

Hey Johnny, what do you think of Ben Stein?
Yeah, me too.

*For a better understanding of the true scientific response to ID and the real motivations of the ID movement, watch this documentary, the story of the Dover, Pennsylvania trial to keep ID out of schools.  Spoiler Alert!  ID is hokum!

Nth Wave Feminism

 

“Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people.” ~ Ferris Bueller

In college I frequently took what might be considered ‘chick’ classes, classes with decidedly unmanly titles like, “Family and Literature.”  This had the sometimes uncomfortable, but often nice bonus of making me one of the only guys in any particular class (and usually the only straight guy).  Taking those classes offered me a fresh perspective that I think shaped my views a great deal in those years.  Thanks to a good friend of mine, I had gained a genuine interest in Feminism and the inclusive elements of its main tenets.

There have been at least 3 ‘waves’ of feminism, the 3rd wave beginning more or less in the 90s.  At the time, I considered myself a 3rd wave feminist evolving into the as-yet-unlabeled new species, 4th wave feminist.  Which is to say, I was susceptible to bullshit titles.

Basically, the 3rd wave feminist had a very simple classification of feminism which attempted to practically label everyone a feminist:

“Do you believe women should get paid equal money for equal work?  Yes?  You’re a feminist.”
“Do you believe women should be able to follow their dreams as freely as men?  Yes?  You’re a feminist.”
“Do you believe women can be satisfied without men?  Yes?  You’re a feminist.”

You get the point.  Everyone (who isn’t a backwoods misogynistic moron or True-Believer Religionist) is a feminist.  It’s nice in theory, but in reality the term ‘feminist’ is a dangerously loaded word, so much so that even a lot of strong-willed, independent women balk at the label, let alone your average hetero male who respects women but also likes to get laid once in a while.

Since leaving university, I’ve tended not to label myself a feminist.  I still am one, I just don’t go out of way to link myself to the movement.  I think most ‘militant’ feminists would probably be happy to keep the distance between myself and them.  I consider myself a feminist by default, because I do believe in the inherent right of anyone to pursue their own happiness/dreams/ambitions without being discriminated against.  But I also love a good sexist joke and my favorite word is ‘Cunt’ (how can you not love it?).

That said, let me say why I do not feel the need to align myself with any wave of feminism, 3rd, 4th or whatever may come next:

Men and women are not created equal.  We just aren’t the same.  In the mathematical sense of the word, no one could legitimately say the two genders are equal.  There is a book entitled Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, coauthored by a pair of evolutionary psychologists, Alan Miller (deceased) and Satoshi Kanazawa.  The books a couple years old, but well worth a read for anyone.  The authors smartly begin with a caveat:  They aren’t reporting what should be or even what must necessarily be.  They are merely looking into the biological facts of our species and reporting the results of studies and research, much of which suggests a biological component to our behaviors.  (Too often, the facts of science are used by people to push an agenda such as Social Darwinism; and then ignorant people use Social Darwinism to attack true science as if they are one and the same.)

There are many fascinating topics in the book, perhaps the most interesting one being the chapter that explores why (hetero) males (of all races) tend to have an attraction to the “Barbie Doll-type” girl.  It’s worth reading because it largely disproves the notion that men are just being conditioned by advertising to find that type attractive.  I could go on, but just read the book.  For now, I want to stay with the question of male/female differences

There are countless ways in which males and females differ.  Perhaps most obvious, men are more aggressive while women tend to be more passive.  This isn’t a stereotype.  This isn’t sexist.  It’s a trend that exists across cultures.  Not all men are aggressive, not all women are passive.  Shock!  As with regular biology, biological psychology acknowledges that people are evolved creatures that are the product of mutations and survivalist breeding.  All people do not evolve exactly the same (if they did, evolution wouldn’t even be possible).  Exceptions don’t prove or disprove the simple fact that males and females in general fall into certain observable, categorical types.

Is everything in this book 100% right?  Probably not.  Like all of psychology, they are working from theories and hypotheses.  Their theories are those that are strongly supported by the evidence.  Their hypotheses are those that may have only circumstantial evidence and need to be studied more.  But a great deal of evidence does support them (as well as a great deal of history).

To bring this back to feminism, I want to mention Margaret Mead, the well-known cultural anthropologist whose famous book, Coming of Age in Samoa, essentially gave feminists of the mid-20th century a rallying point.  Mead purported to have found a culture in which the women took the roles almost always held by men in every culture, that is, the dominant gender.  Feminists used this study as proof that women could be leaders, too, and that it was merely the cultural bias of Patriarchal societies that kept men in power.

As Miller and Kanazawa present in their book, however, another cultural anthropologist, Derek Freeman, came out with research a few years after Mead’s death that threw her whole book into question.  He provided evidence that Mead’s original interviews might have been based on lies (or a joke) from the women she interviewed.  Some people dismiss Freeman’s evidence, and certainly there is reason to at least be cautious in accepting his view.  But if you’re interested in the truth and not just a politically correct pat answer, it’s worth your time to consider Freeman’s evidence (even if only to prove him wrong).

That’s beside the point, though.   Even if the Female-dominated Samoa culture is a reality, it represents only one such culture among the thousands of male-dominated cultures.  Only a bad scientist would consider one counterexample as proof that the whole paradigm should be thrown out wholesale, especially if that example is on tenuous ground.  The fact that nearly 50 years of feminism was rooted in this (possibly faulty) research is why I feel the need to separate myself from the feminist movement.

It shouldn’t be a question of gender equality or biological predisposition.  If a job is done, it should be rewarded based on the quality of the work regardless if the worker was man, woman or alien.  To get bogged down in gender ‘eqaulity’ is to miss the point.  I understand that when feminism was starting out, women needed to argue that they were equal to get any footing in the debate.  (The same thing had to be done for blacks in the civil rights battles.)  It’s been a necessary tool of this fight to blindly compare apples and oranges like they’re the same fruit, but with the initial walls fallen, we shouldn’t be so hypnotized by the rhetoric that we forget that men and women are not the same.

Let me put it another way:  Yes, women and men should be paid the same amount of money to do the same jobs.  But that doesn’t mean that every man should be paid the same as every woman no matter what.  If a man does the job better (or quicker, or whatever is desired), than the man is entitled to higher compensation, just as the woman would be if she were the one doing a better job.  It’s common sense.*

The problem with trying to make feminism a giant rendition of “Anything You Can Do (I Can Do Better)” is that it makes women and men competitors, and even friendly competition can turn people into enemies.  Plus, as any feminist should be aware, the gender lines aren’t always that clear.  There are gay men and lesbians, transsexuals, transgendered people and probably many other classifications.  Instead of arguing that men and women are equal, we should acknowledge that there is a vast spectrum of gender in which a person may fall in.  If it’s bigoted to reduce an entire group to a ‘type’ in order to dismiss them, it’s just as bigoted to reduce one group to a ‘type’ in order to include them.

This is why I like the LGBT movement.  Like feminism, it is seeking equal rights, but instead of coaching the conversation in the language of comparisons, it is actually going quite the opposite route:  It says we are all individuals, very different and despite those differences we should all be able to live together in a fair society.

I know there will be some feminists that will disagree completely with my assessment of feminism, and rightly so.  3rd wave feminism always made the point that anyone can be a feminist and a feminist can be anything (President or Housewife), and with such a wide net there is no way to generalize the whole movement.  But, so often, a movement comes to represent something that the individuals do not stand for.  Again, I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe in equal rights for women (and all biological classifications of people).   I do not align myself with the -Ism of being a feminist because I think the movement in general leads down an unnecessary path of bitter disputes, often based on ignoring gender differences in a way that is either ignorant or blatantly false.

The battle for equality (whether it be women’s rights, gay rights, racial equality or any other form) isn’t won when the numbers of your group reach their highest peak.  The battle is won when your group doesn’t need a label at all.**

*You could legitimately see this as an argument against Affirmative Action but that is a different and larger subject with broader issues to consider.  If I were to make a quick generalization, I would say that Affirmative Action has its necessary uses, especially in the university setting where many social factors could  explain discrepancies in test scores and the such, but I think Affirmative Action in the work place is a bit more dubious and I have my doubts that it fixes any problems.

**I want to acknowledge that Sam Harris made a similar argument for why people should lose the term ‘Atheist’.  While I have had these thoughts about feminism for a while now, it had never occurred to me to think of atheism in the same light.  I think it’s a great insight.

5 Underrated (or Under-seen) Great Films

A list like this probably gets made every 5 seconds online.  I’m not going to say these are the greatest films of all time, or films you must see if you’re a cinephile.  These are merely movies I love and think more people should be aware of; and if you’ve seen these movies, maybe you should watch them again.  Enjoy:

5. The Ice Storm (Directed by Ang Lee.)

In college I stumbled across this movie on AMC one afternoon when I was probably skipping class.  When I turned it on, I assumed I was catching the last 5 minutes, so I kept it on to see what was on next, only to end up watching the whole movie.  This was about the time the first Spider-man had come out, so when I saw Tobey Maguire it caught my attention.  Well, besides having a great cast and amazing direction (Ang Lee’s filming of the titular ice storm is gorgeous), it was just a compelling story.  Imagine “American Beauty” set in the 1970s without the overly sentimental bag blowing in the wind motif and you’ll get an idea of what this movie is about.

Plus, key parties.

And the always beautiful Joan Allen gives a killer performance, so what’s not to love?  Definitely worth a rental if you’ve managed to miss this one.

4. Pleasantville (Directed by Gary Ross)

(Okay, so not the trailer, but I love the song and this video conveys the movie pretty well, too.)

Two movies in a row with Tobey Maguire and Joan Allen, but I don’t have an obsession.  I swear (well, not with Tobey, at least).  This is just a great movie, one that even I dismissed when I first saw it (at like 14 or 15).  But it has grown on me over the years, not least of which because it holds up so well.  I realize this movie isn’t probably ‘under-seen’ as many people have watched it, but I think people need to re-watch it.  Even if you loved it when you first saw it, it’s worth a second (or tenth) viewing just because it completely works from beginning to end.  People who would dismiss this movie for a seemingly simple message (like I did originally) should go back and re-examine it, because there’s a lot more going on underneath than just a simple “We’re not really worse off than we used to be” message.

But forgetting all the ‘message’ stuff, it’s just a clever movie with a great premise and excellent execution.

Also, any movie that has Etta James’ “At Last” and Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” in it is automatically a cool flick.

3. The Three Amigos (Directed by John Landis)

As quotable as any 1980s comedy, for some reason this movie doesn’t have the devoted fan following that Ghostbusters or Caddyshack has.  Again, it’s not so much that this movie is underseen or even disliked, but rather that it isn’t so much bigger in the common consciousness of the general public.  I’ve probably seen this movie a hundred times in my life (not an exxageration), but it still can make me laugh.  It’s one of those few comedies that walks the balance of dumb and smart, slapstick and musical, clean and dirty.  Besides, any movie with Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short (seriously underrated comedian) in the days before they all went soft is clearly going to be worth your time.

If nothing else, who doesn’t love  a singing bush:

2. The Fountain (Directed by Darren Aronofsky)

Having worked in a Music/DVD section of a Barnes & Noble, I noticed an odd phenomenon with this movie.  A lot more people bought the soundtrack than the actual movie.  With good reason, as the soundtrack to this movie (by Clint Mansell with the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai) is one of the most powerful and affecting scores I’ve ever heard.  Even if you’ve never seen this movie (for shame), you should have this music.

But let me not sell the movie short.  The Fountain is an amazing work, gorgeously filmed, brilliantly acted (say what you want of Hugh Jackman, but he’s got talent; and Rachel Weisz is both an incomparable actress and stunning beauty who is high on my list of celebrities I would sleep with, even while in a relationship) and thick with meaning and ideas.  I know people who have seen this movie have been turned off by its seemingly New Age message and confusing structure, but good art requires that you delve in.  Sure, not every movie has to be an enigma wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a used condom, but occasionally you want to see a movie that challenges your intellect and spacial thinking while you’re watching it, and this is it.

There is a cornucopia of film tricks throughout this movie to sate any cinema nerd, not least of which is the fact that the space scenes are done with an absolute minimum of CGI, and mostly consist of filming chemicals in a petri dish, creating truly stunning and original footage that looks far more beautiful than anything James Cameron or Michael Bay have ever shown us.  Added to that are the repetition of shots and visual cues and what you have is a movie that’s almost more a poem than a movie.  Still, don’t dismiss this movie as psuedo-spiritual hooey, because at the heart of this film is scientific wonder for the creative force of nature and evolution, where the death of a star is really just the beginning of new life.  College theses could be written on the deluge of symbols in this movie.

But I’ll restrain myself.  See this film.  Be blown away.

1. October Sky (Directed by Joe Johnston)

Listen to some music from this film:

I love this movie.  Unabashedly.  It’s not the greatest movie ever made.  It didn’t deserve an Oscar and it certainly didn’t set itself apart as a cinematic masterpiece.  Really, this movie is nothing more than one of those Underdog Sports movies that comes out about 6 times a year.  Except, this movie isn’t about a ragtag football team.  It’s about kids in a coal mining town who want to use science to make an escape from what seems like their inevitable fate in the mines.  And for that alone, this movie ends up in my DVD player 2 or 3 times a year.

This movie exhilerated me as a kid, and even now I find it affecting.   There are very few movies out there that emphasize the kind of profound effect a love of science can have on a person’s life.  Like Homer Hickam in the movie, science wasn’t exactly my strong suit in school (I was great at math, but I never had any real passion for biology or chemistry), but, again, like Homer I had a moment in my life when I saw the illuminating power of science and fell in love with the many facets of it.  His moment was seeing Sputnik fly overhead; mine was sitting in a General Psychology class and seeing how the chemicals in the brain work.  From there, the whole world of biology, chemistry and physics opens up.

I realize that the movie takes plenty of liberties with the true story of the Rocket Boys, as all movies ‘based on a true story’ do, but that’s beside the point.  It’s uplifting and joyous and even a cynic like me can enjoy a movie with no ‘bad language’ or overtly sexual scenes (usually the only 2 things I look for in a movie).  It’s just a simple story with solid performances from everyone involved, including a great performance by Chris Cooper (one of my all time favorite actors).

And, again, I love the music in this movie, both the score  by Mark Isham and the assortment of great 1950s rock n roll.

Do yourself a favor, rent this movie and feel just a little bit better about life.