Avatar Badge & Content Advisory

Avatar Badge & Content Advisory
Showing posts with label Psychology-Sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychology-Sociology. Show all posts

Monday, October 31, 2016

The Enemy Within




The Enemy Within,
or,
Another Symptom
of Monopolistic Dualism,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)


"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, Aphorismus 146

"Who with monsters fights, should see that he in the process not become a monster. And when you long into an abyss gaze, then gazes the abyss also into you."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
(my translation)


"In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie:  i fascisti e gli antifascisti."
~ Ennio Flaiano

"In Italy, the fascists divide themselves into two categories: the fascists and the antifascists."
~ Ennio Flaiano
(my translation)


Preface

"Monopolistic Dualism" is a term whose origin is rightly attributed to one who used to go by the "tribal name" Crommán mac Nessa, one of the founders and leaders of a movement which has at times been called "an Rian Sinnsearach" or "in Róen Sinserda" (the first is Gaelic and the second is Old Irish, and both mean "the Ancestral Way"), among other names, mac Nessa's own expression of which has sometimes been called "Ivernian Heathen Revivalism."  His work now survives only in privately-held copies and in earlier versions preserved at the Internet Archive.

Writing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, mac Nessa used the term to refer to a "religious tradition" which in its main expressions teaches dualism, both metaphysically and ethically (although its theologians often deny the dualism, realizing that dualism is metaphysically unsatisfactory and ethically depressing;  nevertheless, the "sacred" texts of the religions which derive from this tradition do express rather obvious dualistic ideas, and the laypeople of the religions think in dualistic terms, even if this dualism be "merely" a form of what has sometimes been called "External Dualism" or a form of what might be called "Actual Dualism" [as distinct from "Real Dualism"] or "Temporary Dualism" or "Finite Dualism"), and which insists, in each of the main religions which are its expressions, that that particular religion is "the one true and only way," regarding other religions of the same tradition as wrong, and consequently advocates for what mac Nessa pointed out was "religious imperialism," that is, efforts to convert others, whether by attempted persuasion or by force.  To regard these as somehow unique or original is to overlook the influences upon them, which included Parthian Zoroastrianism and various dualistic perspectives (whether philosophical or mystical, or both) in the territories around the northeast and central east Mediterranean Sea, especially in imperial Roman and imperial Hellenistic societies.

An extended examination of these various religions of the same religious tradition, and the influences upon them, is beyond the scope of this present writing, but the successor of mac Nessa, who goes by the "tribal name" Dianim ingen Nessa or Dianaimh nic Nise (and who has been entrusted with legal custodianship, editorial authority, and continuation of the works of Crommán mac Nessa), may eventually produce some discussion thereof, here or elsewhere.  Suffice it to say for the purposes of this present composition that "Monopolistic Dualism" as used by mac Nessa refers primarily to certain underlying metaphysical and ethical concepts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Abrahamic Tradition of Religions), and, more relevantly for this present discussion, ~ the influences of those concepts upon societies in which those religions have been more or less dominant. ~


Introduction

So strong has been the influence of these religions upon certain societies that the majority of persons within those societies have a preconscious assumption of the truth of whichever of these religions is more or less dominant within the society in which they have been raised, even if they themselves have never read the "sacred" texts of that religion, attended any sort of doctrinal presentations of the religion, or done anything worthy of the name "study" of the said religion.  In consequence of this preconscious assumption, such persons when and if they take a greater interest in the religion are required to unlearn a number of erroneous concepts about the religion (and usually to be indoctrinated in a specific sect's interpretation of said religion, which may involve more "unlearning" of "erroneous" concepts and replacement with the sect's particular dogmatic positions).  As this influence is so strong upon the wider society, even of those who are, at most, merely nominal followers of the religion, the culture or cultures associated with the society tend over time to take on more and more influences from the religion.  Examples of such influence may be relatively mild or even innocuous, or they may be rather pervasive.  Such examples may be found in poetry and other literature, music, visual art and architecture, figures of speech, political discourse and rhetoric, and assorted other expressions of culture.

As the concepts involved in this influence are metaphysical dualism and ethical dualism, some explanation of Systematic Philosophy and its branches or stages is probably in order.  Philosophy, the Queen and Mother of the Sciences, from at least the mediaeval era till around the time of the fin de siècle XIX and the dèbut de siècle XX, has been characterized in retrospect (by some Logical Atomists and Logical Postivists) as "speculative," and subsequent Philosophy has been portrayed as "analytic."  Such painting of the discipline is, however, generalization, for analytic philosophy existed long before Gottlob Frege, and so-called "speculative" philosophy has continued well beyond Wittgenstein, Russell, and Quine.  The author sees the alleged distinctions between "analytic" and "speculative" Philosophy as artificial and of little to no benefit,  However, for the purposes of this explanation, when performed as a "systematic" discipline, Philosophy has traditionally begun with Metaphysics (or more accurately, Ontology and Metaphysics), built Epistemology upon that foundation, decorated it with Aesthetics, erected the pillars of Ethics to support the roof, and then constructed the roof of Politics (including usually Law and Economics) atop those pillars.

Without going into too much detail, Ontology is concerned with Being (or "Essence") and Existence, the Real and the Actual, and Metaphysics applies these concerns to questions of "What is the nature of Reality?" and "What is the One or the Many Constituent(s) of Reality?" and consequent elaborations of answers proposed to these questions.  Very briefly, Ethics deals with Justice in an internal sense (as Politics expands upon this and takes the ideal of Justice to external applications).


Dysfunctions Derived from Monopolistic Dualism

If Monopolistic Dualism be the cause, then it results in assorted dysfunctions of a philosophical, psychological, and/or sociological nature.  Having the same cause, these dysfunctions are naturally similar, at times even blurring into one another and interacting in complex ways.  Indeed, sometimes they are virtually indistinguishable.  For the purposes of this present discussion, only three will be addressed:  Bifurcation Fallacy, Double Standard, and Dichotomy, each of which is a type of Polarization.

Bifurcation Fallacy, which has a variety of names, is more commonly known as "False Dilemma" (or more precisely is a type of False Dilemma, in that False Dilemma may involve more than two options, but never all possible options, whereas Bifurcation Fallacy reduces all choices to a mere two and pretends that those are the only choices which exist), and is generally referred to by laypersons as "Black-and-White Thinking" or "Black-or-White Thinking," is a Logical Fallacy, that is, an incorrect inference form, or a type of faulty reasoning.  Bifurcation Fallacy is limited and limiting;  where multiple answers to a given question exist, only two are presented, while all others are either ignored or left unmentioned, or their existence may even be denied explicitly.

Double Standard is defined by Merriam-Webster as:


a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially :  a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men


In unequal or undemocratic societies, a double standard may exist in the application of law to the wealthy and the middle class and poor, with the wealthy receiving privileged or preferential clemency or treatment, while the poor and the middle class are dealt with more strictly and more severely.  In the example given by the dictionary, what is intended is that the notion that a man who is sexually promiscuous is merely "sowing his wild oats" is contrasted with the characterization of a promiscuous woman as "a slut," but likewise the view of a celibate or sexually faithful man as somehow lacking in masculinity contrasted with the celibate or sexually faithful woman as a "virtuous" virgin or wife.  Exceptions to both of these exist:  a celibate woman may also be disparaged as a "spinster" or an "old maid," and a sexually promiscuous man might occasionally be labelled a "scoundrel" or a "roué," but these are exceptions to the general custom.

Dichotomy is defined by Merriam-Webster as:


a difference between two opposite things : a division into two opposite groups : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities; also :  the process or practice of making such a division 


A dichotomy presupposes the actuality or reality (or both) of "polar opposition," and more often than not misrepresents complementary opposites as "polar opposites," the dichotomy being expressed by persons who conceive of opposition only in terms of Polarization, and furthermore see no shades of grey between the extreme poles of black and white.




Symptoms of Dysfunctions Caused by Monopolistic Dualism

Symptoms of these dysfunctions include:  Puritanism vs Hedonism, Fundamentalism, Racism, Fascism (and "Antifa"), Reactionary vs Radical, the "Two" Party System, Paranoia, and "the Enemy Within."

The influential American thinker H.L. Mencken once wrote, "Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."  While this was satire, it was not an inaccurate description from some perspectives.  Puritanism was (and is) a form of self-righteous busybodyism.  Puritans assume they know the will of their god, and employ haste in their judgements of others, looking at superficial actions and appearances, rather than essential motivations and attitudes.  Puritanism is an extremist movement devoted to "purifying," initially the Church of England, and later the wider society (especially members of adjacent communities who disagreed with the views of the Puritans).  Puritans have also been characterized as killjoys or dour prudes, in polar opposition to Hedonists;  some scholars (notably, Peter Gay) have contested this view, albeit with somewhat unconvincing counterexamples.  The reputation of the Puritans for religious intolerance, however, is well deserved.

A related phenomenon is Fundamentalism, which exists in most religions (and other forms of worldview).  Fundamentalism is usually, but by no means always, a religious phenomenon, and, like Puritanism, involves an attempt to maintain "purity of doctrine, and is intolerant of dissent or diverse viewpoints.  Fundamentalism also promotes a rigid literalism and socially reactionary perspectives, as well as a sort of exclusivist elitism among its adherents (whence the term "Holier than thou").  Fundamentalism may be "separatist" (withdrawn from the wider society and unconcerned with what the fundamentalist regards as "worldly" concerns) or "open" (engaging in socio-political and economic activism intended to impose the views of the particular manifestation of Fundamentalism on the wider society).  In religious contexts, Fundamentalism is sometimes set in polar opposition to what religious Fundamentalists refer to as "Modernism" or "(religious) Liberalism," by virtue of the religious Fundamentalist rejecting the application of scholarship and critical tools and techniques to learn more about the sources of their dogma (for the acceptance of such might result in the need to amend one's interpretations).  Sometimes "Credalists" are distinguished from "Fundamentalists" on the grounds that the former embrace Creeds and the Traditional Teaching Authority attributed to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, while the latter claim to embrace the Protestant rallying cry "Sola scriptura."  For any practical purposes, however, they are the same in terms of how they approach belief and scholarship, and how they view dissent and dissenters.

Racism is a symptom of the belief in "good and evil," and the wish on the part of a person that he or she is "good," and by extension, that people who are like her or him are also "good," and therefore, anyone who is not like them is "evil."  This is usually born of ignorance and fear, which mutates into hate.  When it is writ more largely, it often results in Fascism.

Fascism is a socio-political and economic viewpoint, which has certain salient characteristics, chief among which are intense nationalism, intense pro-Capitalism, intense anti-Communism, rhetorical appeals to traditional values and patriotism and the middle class, strong "law and order" policies of an authoritarian nature, glorification of war, and scapegoating (often in the form of racist hatred).  "Antifa" was, once upon a time, a legitimate resistance movement against Fascism, but has long since devolved into the mirror image of Fascism, utilizing many of the same tactics and espousing ideas which tolerate no dissent.

"Reactionary vs Radical" refers to two polarized perspectives on society and social questions.  The Reactionary is one who is so resistant to change that he or she would attempt to undo changes and revert society back to a previous condition, and often expresses an intention to use violence in order to effect this reversion (sometimes following through with the violence).  The Radical is one who espouses change without much regard for whether or not such change will be beneficial, and generally advocates for accomplishing such change by means of violence (again, sometimes following through with violent acts).  In between these are various shades ranging from "Conservative" to "Moderate" to "Liberal" or "Progressive" (while "Liberal" and "Progressive" are not synonymous or coterminous, they do share occasional goals and sometimes their ideals even overlap, while at other times, they will be at loggerheads, because even though they both advocate for beneficial change, they come at it from different angles, the Liberal being in favor of top-down imposition and the Progressive being in favor of grass roots activism;  other distinctions between these two perspectives exist as well, but for the moment, this will suffice).

The "Two" Party System should require no explanation to regular readers of this blog.  If, however, someone would like a refresher in the subject, then "For the World Is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky" should serve well enough.

Paranoia refers to an irrational fear that "the other" is not only "evil," but also actively working to do harm to the subject, often by means of some type of conspiracy.

"The Enemy Within" deserves its own separate discussion, for it is to some extent a result of one or more than one of the other symptoms listed.


The Enemy Within

The quote from Nietzsche which opens this present discussion says:  "Who with monsters fights, should see that he in the process not become a monster. And when you long into an abyss gaze, then gazes the abyss also into you."

Nathaniel Hawthorne, in his short story "Young Goodman Brown," provides an illustration of this "aphorism," in that Young Goodman Brown begins the story as one of "the elect," those who in Puritan society viewed themselves as having been predestinated (Sic; haec orthographia recta est.) to salvation in spite of the total depravity which Puritans (and Calvinists in general) believe to be the state of humanity, goes out from the authoritarian order of his society into the untamed wilderness, where he started at every woodland sound and shadow, had some sort of revelation or vision, and returned to his home as depraved as he thereafter believed everyone else to be.

Fundamentalists in their zeal to be "Holier than thou" see "the other" as heretical, deceived, oppressed by demons, and so on, and consequently attempt to outdo one another in external signs of piety, much as the Pharisees who were condemned in the sixth chapter of Matthew, living not due to honest belief or desire to be good, nor from love of the divine and his or her fellow humans and other animals, but out of fear of punishment and a desire to be viewed as "orthodox" by the community.  They become what they claim to not be.

The racist or Fascist projects all of his or her vices upon "the other" who is the subject of scapegoating, and by persecuting this "other," the acting subject, in what Freud would have described as "an unholy marriage of the Id and the Superego," becomes all that he or she hates, while generally not realizing it.  When such a person does realize the truth, his or her hatred is likely to become even more intense, as blame for such "transformation" is also projected onto "the other."  She or he becomes all that he or she hates.

Reactionaries and Radicals will likewise view any variation from their particular perspective among their fellows to be a clue that these fellows are not only not "pure," but may indeed be an agent of the polar opposite perspective who has somehow infiltrated the security of their organization, and will then perform the work of the adherents of the polar opposite perspective by persecuting their own for minor deviation from orthodoxy.  They become their own oppressors.

Party members in a "Two" Party System are notorious for viewing any criticism of their party and its candidates and elected/appointed officials as evidence that the critic is a member of "the other" party (as if there were only two parties, and as if the "two" were not identical in essence).  The author's father was a lifelong partisan Republican, and he would listen to the author criticize Democrats and the Democratic Party with what might be considered to be contentment, but when she went on to criticize Republicans and the Republican Party, her father would become hostile and accuse her of being "a damned Democrat," in spite of her having just spent thirty minutes or more in critique of the Democrats and their party.  An unfortunate consequence of the "Two" Party System is that many of its captives cannot conceive of any criticism of their party coming from anyone other than a member of "the other" party.  They behave in exactly the same manner towards critics as members of "the other" party, and so have become identical to them in all but name.

When coupled with Paranoia, any of these, or some combination thereof, may lead a person thus afflicted to distrust others and to allege that such distrusted others are infiltrators from a polar opposite perspective, and/or agents of a conspiratorial operation devised by representatives of such.  When the acting subject has set himself or herself up as some sort of "crusader" against a given polar opposite perspective, convinced that the said perspective and its adherents are "evil," he or she may over time adopt the tactics attributed to that other perspective, becoming, in Nietzsche's phrase, the monster which she or he fights, having studied those tactics and the ideology of the polar opposite perspective long enough that, again in Nietzsche's expression, the abyss has gazed back into him or her.

In short, she or he becomes "the enemy within."


The Cure

In order for this symptom to be eradicated, one must not merely address the symptom.  Such a "treatment" would be ineffective, since the cause of the dysfunction behind the symptom would remain unaddressed.  Attempting to treat the dysfunction itself would likewise be less than satisfactory, because, again, the cause would still not be addressed.  The cause of these dysfunctions and their attendant symptoms must be cured.  Dualism alone is undesirable, but Monopolistic Dualism is dangerous to society.  It poisons intellects, holds people captive in the Cave of Ignorance, easily manipulated by unscrupulous demagogues and Machiavellian connivers.  Thus, what must be cured is Monopolistic Dualism itself.  To effect this cure, Monopolistic Dualism must be replaced with a more suitable worldview, of which there are several, including both Monism and Triplism, as well as various other options (even Pluralistic Dualism would be preferable to Monopolistic Dualism).  The author herself espouses Triplism, but she is not imperialistic, and leaves the choice of the replacement up to the individual healer.  For her own part, she will attempt to heal by means of Triplism, as it is her own perspective, and she will hope that it will effect the necessary cure.




Supplemental

Some readers have expressed confusion over this piece, and therefore, presented below are some comments by the author, which she hopes will clarify the import and intent of the above writing.  These comments taken together may be seen as a sort of "Abstract" of the piece, although written in a more "conversational" style than an Abstract would be.

1. The post is ultimately about how the assumption of the existence of a flesh vs spirit dualism, and/or a good vs "evil" dualism, when those are coupled with monopolistic views, result in people hurting other people, and becoming all the bad things which they thought those other people were.  It also includes a proposal for subverting the dominant paradigm which leads to this situation of "The Enemy Within."


2. I myself have a tripartite anthropology: We are Body, Soul, and Spirit.

I believe that Ethics is a complicated business, and the ethicality of conduct is found in Motivation/Attitude, Context/Situation, and Consequence.


3. Imagine that Philosophy is like a temple.

The foundation of the temple has to do with Being/Essence and Existence (Ontology), and the pavement on that is an application of it to more specific ideas about Reality/Being/Essence and Actuality/Existence (Metaphysics).

Then you need walls, so you build those out of ideas about Truth and Knowledge (Epistemology).

Then you want some decoration, so you bring in ideas of Art and Beauty (Aesthetics).

You'll need columns to support the roof, and those are made of ideas about Justice in Personal Conduct (Ethics).

And then you put the roof on, which is made of ideas about Justice in Society (Politics, including Law and Economics).


4. Okay, now, along come worldviews which have as part of their underlying Philosophy the belief in a Dualistic Metaphysic which says that Good and Evil are Metaphysical Realities, that they are Essences (no matter Augustine's attempt to spin this into a conception of "Evil" as "privatio boni" or "absence of Good"), Eternal and Forever in Conflict. This Metaphysic moreover asserts that Spirit is "Good" and is somehow imprisoned in Flesh, which is "Evil" (or at least has somehow become "Corrupted"). This may not be officially accepted as "orthodox," but is nevertheless subliminally inculcated by the guardians of "orthodoxy." Nature is consequently seen as likewise "Evil" (or "Corrupted") and so on.

Arising out of this Metaphysic comes an Ethic which affirms that Actions in themselves are "Good" or "Evil." As time goes on, this evolves through the work of Reformers like Y'shua` (Jesus) into a focus on the Motivation/Attitude (and sometimes the Context/Situation), rather than the Act In Itself. However, the old Legalism remains under the surface and generally bubbles up among the laypeople, who are not usually taught that Y'shua` gave a new Ethic to replace the old Legalism. While they are given the texts, the import thereof is not explained to them, and so they still cling to the Literalism and Legalism of the older perspective. Further contributing to this complication is the fact that early teachers of the new reform also perpetuate the Legalism to a greater or lesser extent. Other expressions of this perspective survive as well, or later develop, which perpetuate the old focus on Action In Itself as "Good" or "Evil." The Reform is therefore not very successful, like a revolution which merely replaces "Tsar" with "Chairman," or "Congreditor princeps novus, idem princeps vetus" (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss).

Because these worldviews are religious, and not simply philosophical, they also include additional notions beyond the confines of Philosophy, including the idea of "Original Sin" and a "Sin Nature" somehow deriving from "Original Sin." Rather than teaching the disciple to amend his or her own conduct by intellectual meditation, mystical contemplation, and the cultivation of virtue, these worldviews develop a concept of "salvation" or "deliverance," which requires a "savior" or "deliverer." Such a person must of course be somehow free of the "Sin Nature" and therefore must be somehow divine or specially blessed by the divine, or some such device.

Furthermore, the claim is put forward that ONLY this belief system and its "savior" figure can effect this deliverance.

Taken in combination with the Metaphysical and Ethical Dualism, this Soteriological Exclusivity (see note below) implies, or even explicitly demands, that the disciple should spread this belief system to others, allegedly out of compassion, but more because 1. the disciple fears that infidels will perpetuate "Evil" in the world and possibly visit evil in the sense of pain and suffering upon the disciple, AND 2. because the disciple may be led into doubt when confronted by an infidel who seems virtuous and is willing to rationally discuss such concepts, and doubt challenges the unquestioning credulity upon which the priesthoods of these belief systems depend for wealth and power.

Thus arises "Monopolistic Dualism."

(Soteriology = from Sôtêria, Classical [Attikê] and Hellenistic [Koinê] Greek for "Salvation" + -logia, Attic and Koinê Greek for "study, science, discipline").


5. Monopolistic Dualism leads to a number of intellectual dysfunctions, among which are Bifurcation Fallacy, Double Standards, and Dichotomies.  Symptoms of these dysfunctions as experienced in society are also discussed (including the one which is the main focus of the post, and which I have called "The Enemy Within"), and then a "cure" is proposed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The quote from Ennio Flaiano (a member of the Italian literati, and also part of the Italian cinematic scene, who lived through Mussolini's régime) is given in La solitudine del satiro as "In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie:  i fascisti e gli antifascisti."  I have translated this as:  "In Italy, the fascists divide themselves into two categories:  the fascists and the antifascists."  Flaiano gives this as a paraphrase of a statement he attributes to Mino Maccari (another member of the Italian literati who also lived through Mussolini's régime), the original statement being:  "Il fascismo si divide in due parti: il fascismo propriamente detto e l'antifascismo."  For the Italian-deprived, that means (also my translation):  "Fascism divides itself in two parts:  fascism properly called and antifascism."








The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 5;  episode 5 overall;  production code 05.


Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 




Saturday, February 21, 2015

Some Musings Regarding LGBTI Discrimination


Some Musings Regarding LGBTI Discrimination
Directed to Proponents of Discrimination on the Alleged Grounds of "Religious Freedom"
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)


In the article, "Kansas Guv Endangers Thousands of Gays," V. Gene Robinson writes:

It is an astounding and horrifying phenomenon when rights are actually taken away from citizens. It is the overwhelming tradition in our democracy for laws, acts of Congress, and the Constitution itself to give and protect its citizens’ rights, not take them away.

I keep affirming this idea just as Robinson has done.  The Constitution should never be amended to restrict rights, but only to extend them.  America is about Freedom as preferable to Control -- especially preferable to Control by some religious sect.

If I didn't know better, I would be tempted to argue for establishing a Senate Unamerican Activities Committee which could try unamerican twats like Bareback ... uh, Brownback ... on trial for disloyalty to the ideals of Americanism.  But such committees, like Puritans and Pilgrims in New England, tend to go on witch hunts, imagining that the bogeyman is behind every tree and under every rock, and a lot of cute and furry animals get hurt in the process.  (Try not to get lost in my extended metaphors.  It might hurt your brain if you can't find the key to get back to literal and figurative prose.  Then again, too many people seem to have lost the key to get into the figurative and metaphoric expressions and are stuck in literality, with serious psychological dysfunction being the rather obvious result.)

But this guy doesn't need to be entrusted with any authority over any citizen or group of citizens.  He's a crackpot, to put it mildly.

What I find most astonishing in all of this hoopla from the Sanhedrin of the present is the notion that discrimination is acceptable.  Woe unto you, busybodies and self-righteous ones, for you neither enter in nor suffer others to enter in.  Woe unto you, for you swallow camels in your credulity, but cannot let go of a turd that is of little or no importance to you, due to your anal retentiveness and compulsion to mind everyone's business but your own.  I can understand the desire you have not to look into the mirror -- the reflection must be akin to the picture of Dorian Gray.  You will eventually look at the reflection;  the act is unavoidable.  Best to do so consciously, willingly, and for an extended period.

I am going to repeat myself, though it annoy me to have to continue to do so on so many different matters in which the obvious ought to be obvious to all without having to be pointed out even once.  As such, I will add more details and allusions, for variety is the spice of life.

A limited number of Christian sects (or, as they prefer to call them, "denominations") teach that there are seven sacraments.  More sects teach that there are two.  Only those sects which teach the existence of seven sacraments hold to a view that one of the sacraments is what they term "Holy Matrimony."  The majority of Christian sects, including the Southern Baptist Convention (so very vocal in the fight against liberty, justice, and equality for all), teach that the only sacraments are Baptism and the Eucharistic ceremony.  In fact, one Protestant sect which still does affirm that "Holy Matrimony" is a sacrament is the Church of England, which came into being in part as a result of an English monarch deciding that his marriage was not such a big thing after all since the wife had produced no heir for him.  In spite of how the Anglican sect came into being, and in spite of the fact of most Christian sects not even teaching the doctrine that Holy Matrimony is a sacrament, a far more relevant prey awaits our hunt in this forest:  semantics.

Some of these opponents to Marriage Equality have suggested that same-sex couples should be "content" with being granted "civil unions."  Newsflash:  all marriages are nothing more or less than social/civil contracts.  That includes even "Holy Matrimony."  You can live anything sacramentally, even the work of digging a ditch.

On the contrary, I have suggested and still continue pointing out:  "Marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!

Or more precisely, for any x, if x is Holy Matrimony, then x is Marriage, but not every Marriage is Holy Matrimony.  There is no Holy Matrimony which is not Marriage, but there is Marriage which is not Holy Matrimony.  This is called "an A Statement."  Here, I'll show you a pair of Boolean Circles:



         

You'll note that the vesica piscis (the overlapping area of the two circles) there is entirely shaded in.  One of the two circles represents a subject S, and the other represents a predicate P.  This diagram says that all of the members of one exist solely in the other.  Verily, Holy Matrimony is a type of Marriage and all Holy Matrimonies fall into the category of Marriage.  Nobody disputes this.

Were the diagram showing one circle shaded in entirely, except for the vesica piscis area, it would represent "No S are P."  That is "an E Statement."  Since we don't have one here, I won't show the diagram.  Sorry, bigots;  I don't accept your contention that "no same-sex unions are marriages," because I know better, and the entire point of this is an attempt to educate you -- not to indoctrinate you, but certainly not to kowtow to your sacred cows nor enable your willful ignorance and fears.  I will instead show you Boolean Circles illustrating I Statements and O Statements:


The top diagram shows an X in the vesica piscis, and represents "an I Statement," which is a proposition that "Some S are P."  The lower diagram shows an X inside the S circle but outside the vesica piscis, thus graphically representing "Some S are not P," which is "an O Statement."


  • All examples of Holy Matrimony are members of the category of Marriage. (A Statement, All S Are P)
  • Some examples of Marriage are members of the category of Holy Matrimony. (I Statement, Some S Are P)
  • Some examples of Marriage are not members of the category of Holy Matrimony.  (O Statement, Some S Are Not P)


Now, of course (I utter in mildly condescending terms), the rest of us are aware that some of you insist that the world was created in 4004 BCE and that "God," by which of course you mean your God, somehow "instituted" marriage between the (forgive me, but I have no desire to coddle your literalism or irrationality) mythical Adam and Chaivah (or "Eve," if you insist on the English form).  Aside from the fact that your myth also refers to "the other people," and "the men of Nod," which ought, if your literalism were even remotely self-referentially consistent, to at least hint to you that your Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but fortunately, I'm not terribly interested in using your "beliefs" to demonstrate to you that you are inconsistent in the acceptance of what you claim to believe -- at least not presently.  Instead, I would like rather to remind you, once again, of your heritage and the freedom of religion you now have as a result of the activism, tears, sweat, and blood of those who left that heritage to you.

America is not a Christian nation.  Before you stop reading, consider why I say this and what I mean in saying it.

Adherents of many Christian sects migrated to "the New World" precisely to escape nations in which the government was married (you will forgive my further illustration of the equivocal nature of the term, I trust) to this or that sect's clergy and sought to impose the will of that clergy upon the masses, no matter the religious persuasion of the individual citizens.  When they were establishing their communities and governments, they sought to do so in a way which would allow them to believe and practice as they saw fit.  Pennsylvania was ab origine a haven for Jews as well as diverse sects of Christianity.  Puritans and Pilgrims were not the only settlers in Massachusetts.  The Merrymount Colony points to hints of non-Christians having come to these shores seeking freedom to live according to their own lights as well.  The result was eradication by the less tolerant;  in that there is some evidence of early efforts to enforce conformity.  The same can be said of the later witch trials.  Admittedly, this current runs deep in America, but it was rejected early as the constitutions of the states were prepared, before the Constitution of the USA, which proclaims not only that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise ... [of religion]," but also that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

You may stomp your feet and cry and flail and rage.  You may not deny.  Neither your religion nor mine is acceptable as a source for legislation affecting both you and me.  Why?  Simple.  I don't agree with your religious views, and thus should not be bound by them, and you don't agree with my religious views and should not be bound by them.  Nor should either of us have to contribute financially to the work of the other's religion.  We may agree in some particulars.  Religions and Sacred Traditions do share some common features, and some have more in common than others, but commonality nevertheless exists in all.  These common features, however, should not be emphasized to the point of obscuring the differences.  I should not be expected to abide by laws based on religious teachings which I find ethically outrageous or rationally questionable.  Here, however, let us consider exactly what this means.

Neither you nor I should be forced to pray to Antiochus Epiphanes or his image in some structure somewhere.  You don't view the man in question as at all divine, and I don't view him as any more divine than anyone else, and marred by flaws in addition.  In addition, Antiochus Epiphanes should not set up his image in a structure established for religious purposes by a distinct sacred tradition.  Furthermore, Antiochus Epiphanes, being a government head, should not be promoting any religion in any way, whether it be the religion of megalomaniacal narcissism or something less ... unhinged.  The government over which he sat was a government of a religiously pluralistic society, in which the rights of the minority should also be protected.

What it does not mean, however, is that I or anyone else has the right to impose restrictions on others which I place on myself by adherence to any particular (or universal, for that matter) religious teaching.  We do not.  If you believe that eating pork is a sin, then you are free to refrain from eating pork.  If you believe that the use of certain words is something you should avoid, then you are free to avoid using those words.  If you believe that your God would condemn you for marrying a person of the same sex, then you are free to refrain from doing so.  If you believe that having an abortion would displease your God, then you are free to refrain from having one.  Pork is not exactly my favorite meat, but I do eat swine flesh on occasion, and have no religious qualms about it.  You do not have the right to prevent me from doing so, no matter how wrong you believe the act would be for yourself.  I have very few taboos with regard to the use of language, and I do fairly often use words which others believe to be somehow forbidden (few know the origin of taboo words in English, nor how the cause thereof was anything but religious or ethical, but the information is not hidden), nor should any legislation impose a prohibition upon me with regard to those words based on socio-economic snobbery and cultural prejudice -- or the teachings of any religion.  In the same way, no law should prohibit the representation of your God or the supposed name of that God in print or art, except a religious law binding only adherents of that religion.  If I chose to have an abortion, I would not do so lightly or frivolously, but it would nevertheless be MY choice based on my reasons, and not your denial of such choice to me based on your views of what your religion teaches.  Your religion is yours, not mine.  I am not bound by its teachings, nor should I be forced to abide by the teachings of your religion any more than you should be bound by the teachings of the sacred tradition of my people.  If I fall in love with another woman and she falls in love with me, and we connect on such a deep level that we would like to marry, that will be OUR choice based on our feelings and our reasons and our beliefs.  It is NOT your right to deny us OUR rights, and all the more so is it not your right to deny anyone else their rights based on your religion, even if they share your religious views.  You may encourage your own fellow sectarians to abstain from exercising all their rights;  certainly most Baptist clergy discourage the exercise of the right to consume alcohol as a beverage, but the point is that even the members of their congregations still have the legal and civil right to purchase alcoholic beverages and consume them as potables, no matter the teachings of their religion on the act.  Freedom of religion does not mean that you can impose religious restrictions on others, nor that you can discriminate against others in a free society.  The very idea that one should defend a supposed "right" to do so is beyond shocking, and far from what we find in your own sacred texts (e.g., the epistle to the Galatians, which proclaims:  "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.").

I'll point you also to the sixth chapter of Matthew, which can teach you many things, if you allow it to do so.  Directed prayer in public schools, for example, is rather discouraged by Jesus in this chapter, along with pretending to be something you are not in order to improve the way others think of you (like the fake "Ex-Gay" personalities and all others who pretend to be straight in order to conform to the expectations of society).  In fact, Jesus rather strongly condemned such hypocrisy.

You were slaves in Egypt.  It's time to take the chains off, and use them for something more humane, rather than to simply perpetuate the cycle of abuse.




In other words, ...

Grow up and get over it.









Monday, November 17, 2014

A Note about Role Playing in Online Games




In response to those who advocate "playing the villain" in online RPGs (MMO or otherwise):

Sure, it's all fun and games to Role Play a villain, until you realize that such behavior can have real-world consequences such as encouraging groups and individuals who are guilty of outrageous crimes against humanity. I would rather be responsible for encouraging heroism in the cause of liberty and human progress such as demonstrated by this young woman and this young man.


Friday, April 25, 2014

Star Trek Online, Season 9: A New Accord ((***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!***))




Star Trek Online,
Season 9:  "A New Accord"

The year in Terrhain reckoning is 2410.  A recounting of recent history is in order to ensure understanding.  In early 2409, peaceful colonies of the Romulan Star Empire were attacked by the Tal'Shiar and the Elachi.  Refugees of these attacks mostly joined with what was then named "the Romulan Republic," a faction vying for power in the wake of the destruction of Romulus and Remus in 2387, made up of a number of personnel from the Romulan Star Navy who had become stridently opposed to the overweening authority of the Tal'Shiar and the abuse thereof by Tal'Shiar agents.  They elected one of their own as their leader, a Romulan by the name of D'Tan, who had studied the teachings of the Vulcan philosopher Surak and joined the Reunificationist movement as a youth, under the leadership of Ambassador Spock of Vulcan.  Spock gave his life to save other worlds from the fate of Romulus and Remus, destroyed by the subspace spread of energy from the Hobus supernova -- a supernova caused, it was learned later in 2409, by the Tal'Shiar.  While still a Reunificationist, D'Tan did not push his personal views on others in the movement.  At the beginning of 2409, "the Romulan Republic" was merely a schismatic faction of Rihannsu, without any real territory to claim as their own.

In early 2409, the Romulan agricultural colony on the planet Virinat was involved in life as usual.  The Virinat variety of Romulan Ale had been brewed and had fermented in the casks long enough;  it was time for the Festival of the Tapping, when the Virinat Romulan Ale casks would be tapped and the colonists would spend the evening in revelry.  The Virinat style of making Romulan Ale had led to a popular variety throughout the Romulan Star Empire;  the colonists harvested nectar produced by Khellidir, insects native to the planet Virinat, and added it to the mix when the brewing process was completed, after which the ale would be poured into wooden casks at the time of the fulness of the Virinat moon and then left to ferment for five cycles of the Virinat moon.  Then the casks would be tapped, and a festival would ensue before the work of distributing the product to buyers throughout and beyond the Romulan Star Empire.  In the afternoon before the first Festival of the Tapping of 2409, colonists noticed that the normally peaceful Khellidir were strangely aggressive.  Investigation led to the discovery of machinery bearing a resemblance to Borg technology, but somehow different.  One of the elders of the colony suggested a connection to a race called "Elachi," who live in subspace.  The machinery having been disabled, however, and the Khellidir back to their typical behavior, further investigation was to be put off until after the festival.  As Malem, the Maiori of the Virinat colony, had just finished his oration at the opening ceremony and the fireworks were beginning to flash in the night sky, the colony was rocked by an explosion, and then another, and another ...

Virinat was under attack.  Colonists were abducted or killed.  A fortunate few managed to escape the planet's surface in shuttles, only to be confronted by Tal'Shiar drone ships and Tal'Shiar light warbirds.  Some colonists managed to get to older light warbirds in the system, relics of past service by the Maiori and other elders of the colony.  These colonists would fight off the Tal'Shiar drone ships and light warbirds, and even a more powerful Tal'Shiar vessel commanded by Colonel Hakeev, the Chief of the Tal'Shiar, the latter with assistance from warbirds of "the Romulan Republic" which warped in at a critical moment.  An Elachi vessel was also destroyed by the Colonists and the warbirds of The Romulan Republic.  Many of the Colonists chose to throw in their lot with the schismatic faction at this point.  Not long afterward, the unwarranted aggression was repeated in another place;  the peaceful Reman mining colony on Crateris was also attacked by Elachi and Tal'Shiar forces.  Fortunately for the Remans of Crateris, however, they had vessels in orbit, and some vessels from the Romulan Republic were also present to lend support, including ships commanded by refugees from Virinat.  A few months later, the Reman Resistance, under Obisek, allied themselves with the Romulan Republic.

Investigations conducted by the Romulan Republic's Militia Intelligence revealed the depths of Tal'Shiar crime and corruption;  a repetition of the offenses would be extensive, and is not necessary in this place, having been recounted elsewhere already, but among them is a practice of indoctrination and brainwashing using various chemical, physical, psychological, audio-visual, and other techniques.  The sycophancy, passive-aggressive tendencies, cruelty, capriciousness, and incompetence which result from successful indoctrination is very similar to symptoms of Damaged Personality Disorder, with an unhealthy dose of Paranoia tossed in.  Deprogramming efforts to liberate the psyches of subjects have not always been entirely successful.

In the first half of 2409, an expedition of vessels from the Romulan Republic rediscovered Dewa-III, a planet to which their ancestors had come after The Sundering and which they had settled before settling on the Two Planets in the Eisn System which became ch'Rihan and ch'Havran.  Important and symbolically potent artifacts from the first settlement by the ancestors were discovered and a new conference was called at Khitomer, where, after attempts to sabotage the proceedings were made by the Tal'Shiar and foiled by elements of the Romulan Republic's Star Navy and the Klingon Defense Force, the Romulan Republic was formally recognized by both the Klingon Empire (and thus the Orion Syndicate, which now secretly runs the Klingon Empire) and the United Federation of Planets.  Territory, including the Dewa System, was recognized as held by the Romulan Republic.  The planet Dewa-III was renamed ch'Mol'Rihan, or "New Romulus," and a Capitol City was constructed on the planet with assistance from the Federation and the Klingon Empire.  Although the Federation and the Klingons were still officially at war, the situation had come to the point of being primarily a cold war, with occasional minor territorial skirmishes, raids, and the like.  The two powers, and what was now "the New Romulan Republic," were faced with far more dangerous enemies, including the Tal'Shiar-Elachi alliance, the Hirogen, the Tholians, the Borg, the Breen, the True Way terrorists, the Undine, and the silent puppetmasters sitting concealed in subspace:  the Iconians.

With the discovery of a functional Iconian Gateway beneath the surface of ch'Mol'Rihan, a new season came.  The New Romulan Republic chose to power up the Gate and open it.  Representatives of both the Klingon Empire and the United Federation of Planets were present for the event, which was almost a catastrophe, but that potential was averted.  In the process, several persons from the three powers had to escape through the active Gateway.  They found themselves inside a Dyson Sphere.  A solanagen-based lifeform was present in the Sphere, as were Voth, a reptilian race which had originated on Terrha and was bent on exterminating anyone who challenged their fundamentalist pseudoscience.  The Solanae Dyson Sphere, as it came to be called, was capable of amazing things.  Among the discoveries was the fact that connecting to the Jenolan Dyson Sphere was possible.  Unfortunately, the Undine invaded the Jenolan Dyson Sphere and began plans to launch an attack on the powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants.  The three major powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, namely, the United Federation of Planets, the Klingon Empire (Orion Syndicate), and the New Romulan Republic, banded together to fight off these attacks, but Earth Spacedock and the Qo'noS Orbital Shipyard were destroyed.  A number of Undine who had infiltrated the Federation were revealed and died trying to kill citizens of the three major powers.  An Iconian appeared with a warning.

Following these events, the Klingon Empire (Orion Syndicate) and the United Federation of Planets agreed to call an end to their hostilities.  The Federation-Klingon War was over.  The threats to the peace of the three powers, and indeed the plenitude of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, from the Tholians, the Tal'Shiar-Elachi Alliance, the Hirogen, the Borg, the Voth, and the Undine continue.  The Tal'Diann stands ready and vigilant to these and any other threats to the security and freedom of the citizens of the New Romulan Republic.




Join us and fight for the New Romulan Republic.






Friday, March 14, 2014

Fads in Mental Diagnoses Revisited



In an earlier post, I made some observations about what I called "fads in mental diagnoses," and the epidemic of over-diagnoses of certain conditions.  New evidence has now been published, which may put this phenomenon in a new light.

From Salon:

There has been a lot of public agonizing lately about the steep rise in diagnoses of ADHD over the last two decades. There is growing, and justifiable, worry that a lot of kids are being put on stimulant medications who don’t need them.

What there hasn’t been is a plausible theory about what’s driving this explosion of diagnoses — 40 percent over the last decade and more than 50 percent over 25 years. The CDC now estimates that 12 percent of school age kids, and as many as 20 percent of teenage boys have been diagnosed with ADHD.

Blame has been directed at parents, for being so poor at discipline that they reach for a pill to make unruly kids settle down. Teachers are blamed for being so inept at maintaining order that they want students medicated into submission. Psychiatrists are blamed for being the pawns of drug companies peddling ADHD meds. But blaming doesn’t explain it. ...

Now comes a book that, finally, offers a data-based analysis that could begin to account for an increase on this scale. “The ADHD Explosion,“ by Stephen Hinshaw and Richard Scheffler, considers all kinds of factors that may contribute to the surge, from diagnosis by undertrained and harried pediatricians to pharmaceutical advertising. But the eye-opening insight from Hinshaw, a clinical psychologist, and Schleffler, a health economist, who are colleagues at University of California, Berkeley, is the correlation between educational policies and the prevalence of ADHD diagnoses.

Using Centers for Disease Control surveys, Hinshaw and Sheffler found that when rates of ADHD diagnoses are broken down by state, it turns out that there are dramatic discrepancies. ...

What the team found was that high rates of ADHD diagnoses correlated closely with state laws that penalize schools when students fail. Nationally, this approach to education was enacted into law in 2001 with No Child Left Behind, which makes funding contingent on the number of students who pass standardized tests.

Read more:
The truth about ADHD: Over-diagnosis linked to cause championed by Michelle Rhee

SuccubaSuprema writes:
Many worthy criticisms of "No Child Left Behind" have been provided since 2001, but this newly published data may finally help to successfully euthanize the inane law.  Why would the Federal Government throw more money at schools which need it less in the first place?  It seems counterintuitive.

Monday, December 23, 2013

War on Christmas?

Here's an interesting little piece by Jim Hightower:
Christmas War!

The victim routine they've been trying for a while now is one I've seen the same people play before.  In the 1980s, the Fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Convention kept whining about how their voices were being drowned out by the awful "Liberals" (as if! seeing as how the people they were complaining about were actually Evangelicals, who are, or were at that time, merely Protestants with a conservative theology, and who generally believed rather strongly in the separation of church and state -- as distinct from the crop of Fundamentalists then being farmed by unscrupulous leaders, who, to the contrary, were Protestants with an almost reactionary theology and a desire to impose their religion on the state, and thence onto the rest of the nation), and how they just wanted to be heard, to have an equal voice, and other such innocent-sounding claims.  However, once they had cemented their hold on the machinery of the Southern Baptist Convention, they took off the fleeces they were wearing and revealed themselves to be the wolves they were pretending others were, and then they did precisely those things of which they had been accusing the "Liberals" (again, actually Evangelicals, and not Liberals by any stretch of the imagination).

Do not fall for this victim routine!  The whine is not authentic, but merely an act, intended to mask a scheme to take control of government in an effort to enforce conformity to their narrow worldview.  Here is a good discussion of what's going on with this routine, notwithstanding what some may regard as an unfortunate choice of font:
The Self-Defined "Victim" - Page 1


See also:
Merry Christmas, right-wingers, The Red Pope, and Jesus

and
Feeding Children from the Tree of Death: Fundamentalism's Abusive Legacy

Monday, December 16, 2013

Fads in Mental Diagnoses




From Mind Hacks:

The New York Times has an important article on how Attention Deficit Disorder, often known as ADHD, has been ‘marketed’ alongside sales of stimulant medication to the point where leading ADHD researchers are becoming alarmed at the scale of diagnosis and drug treatment.

It’s worth noting that although the article focuses on ADHD, it is really a case study in how psychiatric drug marketing often works.

Read more:
A disorder of marketing


SuccubaSuprema writes:

I'm not sure why ADHD researchers are only now becoming alarmed, nor why this trend was not anticipated -- not the trend specific to overdiagnosis of ADHD, but the trend to overdiagnose certain "popular" disorders.  It's hardly a new phenomenon, after all:  "Hyperactivity" was the condition overdiagnosed in the 1970s, while "Manic Depression" or "Manic-Depressive Disorder" was the overdiagnosis of the '80s.  In the '90s, the lingering Manic Depression (by this time renamed to "Bipolar Disorder" for various reasons, not least of which was a need to be more specific and more inclusive at the same time) continued to be overdiagnosed, but a new diagnosis was also on the rise, and "Attention Deficit Disorder" began to be overdiagnosed.  Moving into the first decade of the 21st century, this name expanded to "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder," and had become the dominant overdiagnosis.  In the present decade, it's too early to say for sure, but "Asperger Syndrome" was viewed as pretty sexy at the beginning of the decade, and "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (which is the new label in DSM-5, and which includes what has up till now been called "Asperger Syndrome") seems to be replacing that as a popular diagnosis.

I'm also far from sure that this can be laid at the feet of advertisers.  "Hyperactivity" in the '70s, for example, was treated with a specific diet ("the Feingold diet," which involved omitting artificial flavors, artificial colors, preservatives, caffeine, and sugar from the child's diet) rather than medication.

What may be most telling is that these diagnoses pertain to behaviors and attitudes often noticed in childhood and/or adolescence.  I would be inclined to refrain from making any explicit explanation of this observation here, due to relatives whose children were diagnosed with one or another of these conditions, but I do think the connection is worth considering.  To be more precise, I would suggest that the ones in need of therapy and/or medication may more often be the parents than the children!

A parent has a "problem child" and takes the child to a mental health professional, where the child is diagnosed with "XXXXX disorder," and then the parent shares this information with another parent, and that parent wonders if his/her child might also have "XXXXX disorder."  The next act in this tragedy is easy enough to predict.

Update:
Fads in Mental Diagnoses Revisited



Monday, December 9, 2013

Feeding Children from the Tree of Death: Fundamentalism's Abusive Legacy

Uncharacteristically, I begin this post with my own comments, and then move on to quoting from the article on which I am commenting.  I do this because this is a very important issue which has potential to adversely affect all of us (no matter what perspectives we hold), and the planet itself.


Anyone who has ever entered a Protestant Fundamentalist (authentically Fundamentalist, and not Evangelical, because there is a difference, even though the inexperienced/untrained conflate the two far too often) congregation's meeting hall and interacted with the members of said congregation, experiencing the situation with an open mind and some background in social sciences, will probably not be terribly surprised at the reports of child abuse contained in the article from which I quote a small portion below.  What is more likely to surprise is the fact that some have managed to escape the conditioning.  More noteworthy is the fact that they have developed the skills to combat the movement (and particularly its brainwashing efforts) effectively.

Something else to which the article alludes, and which deserves much attention, is the reproductive proclivity of the Fundamentalist cults, a technique they have learned from conspiracy theories concerning the Roman Church (which has been accused, by clergy members on the fringes of Protestantism, of growing a religious empire by means of condemning birth control).  For over a decade now, Protestant Fundamentalists have included persons who have sought to stack the deck in favor of ignorance, superstition, irrationality, and bigotry, by means of having large families, and indoctrinating their unfortunate offspring in the dogma of their preferred brand of Christianity, which usually also involves the promotion of Far Right Wing Exremist economic philosophy (to the tune of Ayn Rand) and socially reactionary perspectives.  The separation of church and state was, not that long ago, a distinctive doctrine of most Baptist sects in the United States;  that is no longer the case.  These fundamentalists, many of whom claim "Baptist" as part of their self-designations, have goals which include the imposition of their own religous biases on everyone by means of legislation, and their roadmap to success in that particular goal involves spawning more and more offspring and raising them to be voters who will support such initiatives and candidates who will push such initiatives.  This is a very frightening reality, but it is indeed reality, and ignoring it is dangerous for the future of humanity and the earth itself.



What I will quote here from the article is merely some history of the homeschooling movement, and how it became usurped by fundamentalist fanatics, but the remainder of the article describes (in some detail) the ordeals of several children raised in Christian Fundamentalist homes, isolated from reality, and fed the poisonous fruit of the dogma of insanity, abused physically, emotionally, and intellectually.  The article also describes how some have escaped those horrors, and how they have banded together to help others who are still imprisoned by their own parents, who view them not as human beings to be loved, nurtured, and cared for, but rather, as pawns to be exploited in a great "cultural" struggle.


From AlterNet:

Homeschooling didn’t begin as a fundamentalist movement. In the 1960s, liberal author and educator John Holt advocated a child-directed form of learning that became “unschooling”—homeschooling without a fixed curriculum. The concept was picked up in the 1970s by education researcher Raymond Moore, a Seventh-Day Adventist, who argued that schooling children too early—before fourth grade—was developmentally harmful. Moore’s message came at a time when many conservative Christians were looking for alternatives to public schools. ...

Moore’s work reached a massive audience when Focus on the Family founder and Christian parenting icon James Dobson invited him onto his radio show for the first time in 1982. Dobson would become the most persuasive champion of homeschooling, encouraging followers to withdraw their children from public schools to escape a “godless and immoral curriculum.” For conservative Christian parents, endorsements didn’t come any stronger than that.

Over the next two decades, homeschooling boomed. Today, perhaps as many as two million children are homeschooled. (An accurate count is difficult to conduct, because many homeschoolers are not required to register with their states.) Homeschooling families come from varied backgrounds—there are secular liberals as well as Christians, along with an increasing number of Muslims and African Americans—but researchers estimate that between two-thirds and three-fourths are fundamentalists.

Among Moore and Dobson’s listeners during that landmark broadcast was a pair of young lawyers, Michael Farris and Michael Smith, who the following year would found the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). With Moore’s imprimatur and Dobson’s backing, Farris and Smith started out defending homeschooling families at a time when the practice was effectively illegal in 30 states. As Christians withdrew their children from public school, often without requesting permission, truancy charges resulted. The HSLDA used them as test cases, challenging school districts and state laws in court while lobbying state legislators to establish a legal right to homeschool. By 1993, just ten years after the association’s founding, homeschooling was legal in all 50 states.

What many lawmakers and parents failed to recognize were the extremist roots of fundamentalist homeschooling. The movement’s other patriarch was R.J. Rushdoony, founder of the radical theology of Christian Reconstructionism, which aims to turn the United States into an Old Testament theocracy, complete with stonings for children who strike their parents. Rushdoony, who argued that democracy was “heresy” and Southern slavery was “benevolent,” was too extreme for most conservative Christians, but he inspired a generation of religious-right leaders including Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He also provided expert testimony in early cases brought by the HSLDA. Rushdoony saw homeschooling as not just providing the biblical model for education but also a way to bleed the secular state dry.

With support from national leaders, Christian homeschoolers established state-level groups across the country and took over the infrastructure of the movement. Today, when parents indicate an interest in homeschooling, they find themselves on the mailing lists of fundamentalist catalogs. When they go to state homeschooling conventions to browse curriculum options, they hear keynote speeches about biblical gender roles and creationism and find that textbooks are sold alongside ideological manifestos on modest dressing, proper Christian “courtship,” and the concept of “stay-at-home daughters” who forsake college to remain with their families until marriage.

HSLDA is now one of the most powerful Christian-right groups in the country, with nearly 85,000 dues-paying members who send annual checks of $120. The group publicizes a steady stream of stories about persecuted homeschoolers and distributes tip sheets about what to do if social workers come knocking. Thanks to the group’s lawsuits and lobbying, though, that doesn’t happen often. Homeschooling now exists in a virtual legal void; parents have near-total authority over what their children learn and how they are disciplined. Not only are parents in 26 states not required to have their children tested but in 11 states, they don’t have to inform local schools when they’re withdrawing them. The states that require testing and registration often offer religious exemptions.

The emphasis on discipline has given rise to a cottage industry promoting harsh parenting techniques as godly. Books like To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl promise that parents can snuff out rebellious behavior with a spanking regimen that starts when infants are a few months old. The Pearls claim to have sold nearly 700,000 copies of their book, most through bulk orders from church and homeschooling groups. The combination of those disciplinary techniques with unregulated homeschooling has spawned a growing number of horror stories now being circulated by the ex-homeschoolers—including that of Calista Springer, a 16-year-old in Michigan who died in a house fire while tied to her bed after her parents removed her from public school, or Hana Williams [6], an Ethiopian adoptee whose Washington state parents were convicted in September of killing her with starvation and abuse in a Pearl-style system. Materials from HSLDA were found in the home of Williams’s parents.

Read more:
Escape from Christian Fundamentalism - the Kids Who Flee Abusive, Isolated Christian Homes


Related (as linked in the article):

Homeschoolers Anonymous

Homeschooling's Invisible Children


Sunday, December 8, 2013

The Social Construction of Death

From Everyday Sociology:

In Philadelphia, an emergency room nurse named Barbara Mancini was arrested for providing her 93-year-old terminally ill father with a lethal dose of morphine. Her father was in hospice care, meaning that no further treatment was possible and death was imminent; the goals of hospice care are to ease pain and provide comfort for the dying patient. He was in kidney failure and apparently in a significant amount of pain.

Read more:
The Social Construction of Death

SuccubaSuprema writes:

The article takes a serious and hard look at our social relationship with death, pointing out rightly that "people idealize death, thinking that death is naturally peaceful, something that happens in our sleep, but the reality is that it often involves a lot of suffering."  I too have had to face the reality of the loss of a beloved feline companion.  One of the cats who have graced me by sharing their lives with me developed an inoperable tumor.  She had been with me for over a decade, through good times and bad, and may have been the primary reason I remained sane during the worst state of my health, when I myself was near to death.  Letting her go was a difficult choice;  I tried to keep her comfortable and aware of love, but as time went by, her suffering became far too evident.  The time to let her go was present, and I agonized as I contacted the local vet, who, however, was then out of the euthanasia drug necessary to ease the passage of this beloved furry companion.  I contacted another veterinarian in an adjacent county, and, together with my then-housemate, took the beloved silver tabby to his office.  The passage was quick -- too quick for me, honestly, but mercifully quick for my feline friend and companion.  I burst into tears.  Thinking about it as I write this, several years after the fact, my eyes well up with more.  I will always be grateful to her for her condition-free love and consolation;  I wish something could have been done for her to not only prolong her life, but also to cure that cancer and remove her pain.  Unfortunately, that was not the case.  I do not regret my decision to have her "put to sleep," but the pain of loss remains.  I know I did the right thing, the just thing, the ethical thing, and it was not done callously or on the basis of anything other than love and compassion.  Why we as a society have continued to refuse to allow such an act in the case of a human animal boggles the mind.  This is not about "playing God," nor usurping a supposed divine prerogative;  it is, rather, about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you;  it is about "God is love," and it is about "he who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar, and the truth is not in him."


Thursday, November 28, 2013

Kinky Boots in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

This morning, one of the first performances (I believe it was third) in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade was from the musical Kinky Boots.

I watched it with my dad, who (and I'm simply being honest in describing him, not hateful) is in his 80s, senile, "conservative," Protestant, and Republican.  He's also ignorant and fairly bigoted when it comes to LGBTI issues;  he was raised in a different era, and to him, the entire umbrella of LGBTQIA can be summed up with the word "queers."  He does not understand, and does not wish to learn (as he has made quite clear on a number of matters) the truth that reality is bigger than his narrow perspective (I've tried, repeatedly, but even when some of it seemed to have gotten through, he later said things that suggested that nothing I said got through, or that he has completely forgotten the entire discussion, but as I said, he's senile, and men seem to have challenges with the act of listening to speech from a woman -- which latter may be partially due to the way men's brains process women's voices).  Fortunately for everyone, his bigotry toward the LGBTQIA community is entirely passive.

When we recently watched an episode of Modern Family which featured the Gay male couple (who are regulars on the show) and a Lesbian couple (who, I believe, were guest stars, although they may become recurring characters, due to the dynamic between them and the Gay male couple), I was annoyed to hear him ask me why I wanted to watch a show with "a buncha queers," even though he's aware that I'm Bisexual (and we've watched the show several times before without him ever saying a word, possibly because he didn't realize the two men are Gay;  in this episode, however, the words "Gay" and "Lesbian" were used explicitly).  In private, he regularly refers to people as "queer" with evident disdain in his voice.  He seldom, however, says anything about me being Bisexual (I believe he is in denial about this facet, and several other facets, of my life, but also, it's not like I make a big deal about my being Bisexual around him).

During the Kinky Boots segment of the parade, however, he said not one word, but watched it silently, apparently entertained by the performance.  I did not make any issue out of it, and the performance passed without comment.  In fact, he still hasn't said anything about that, even now when it happened about three hours in the past, and I doubt he will say anything about it.  The only thing he ever did say about any of the broadcast was "This ain't the parade!" because the parade proper had not yet made it to the area in front of Macy's, and I had to remind him that this is how it's done every year.

On the other hand, I've seen quite a few obnoxious comments on the internet since the performance, with derogatory terms like "trannies," and people complaining that it was not "Family Friendly" or that it was not appropriate for a Rated G broadcast.  There have also been some complaints about having to explain things to children, while some explicitly said that they did not appreciate any lectures on diversity from the parade.  A sample of such comments can be found in the following links:

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade: Drag queens in kinky boots

UGH!!!! -- Macy's Day Parade Promotes Gay Musical "Kinky Boots"

Just what Thanksgiving needed: Drag queens in Kinky Boots [photos]


Fortunately, there have been more positive comments as well, such as this:

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade: Kinky Boots


You can listen to the original Broadway cast recording of the song performed here:




The whole thing seems quite acceptable for a G Rating.  "Family Friendly" does not actually mean "Let's pretend everyone is a white, cisgendered, heterosexual, fundamentalist Christian who supports the tyranny of capitalism (even if they themselves get the shaft right along with those who prefer a saner economy) and hide from anyone who isn't."  A lot of people seem to think it does, though, and more's the pity.

Here is a portion of the lyrics to the piece from the performance (the same one in the video above).  This is hardly something to get your panties into a bunch over, unless you like promoting ignorance, fear, and hatred.

Alright, now, we've all heard of the 12 step program, have we not?
Yes, but what you can do in 12, I want you to know that we all can do in 6 now, and it goes like this:
One: Pursue the truth
Two: Learn something new
Three: Accept yourself and you'll accept others too!
Four: Let love shine
Five: Let pride be your guide
Six: Change the world when you change your mind!
Just be who you wanna be.
Never let them tell you who you oughta be.
Just be. With dignity.
Celebrate yourself triumphantly.
You'll see.
It's beautiful.
You'll see
It's beautiful.
Just be.
It's beautiful.
Just be.

Read more:
Original Broadway Cast Recording - Raise You Up / Just Be Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Update:
A video of the actual performance from the parade has now been put up on YouTube.  I hesitate to link to it, for two reasons:  (i) the person who uploaded it made unfavorable comments (which did not reflect much awareness of diversity, since he or she confused transsexuals with drag queens), and (ii) it may not be left up, if a copyright or trade mark complaint is made.  The comments section is includes not only homophobic and transphobic remarks (some of which really ought to be removed by YouTube (but apparently there's little chance of that!), but also antisemitism!  However, one comment really stands out, to such an extent that I believe I should reproduce it here, and I suppose that I should give the link to the source because of that.  Therefore, here's the link.  And here's the comment:










I'd have to say that Joe's comment really puts all of the hysteria in perspective.

Here's a video of the same, uploaded by someone who didn't make hateful and ignorant comments when posting it.



Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Twilight and the Western Vampire Tradition


Twilight and the Western Vampire Tradition

by Giovanna
(aka "SuccubaSuprema")

Prefatory Remarks:

What follows is a commentary which might be seen as sociological or an example of criticism (in the academic sense, like Literary Criticism, although I have not written this in academic style) or both, updated and collected from several posts I wrote and posted in a thread I started in a certain internet forum (the posts I'm collecting, into what I hope will be one more-or-less consistent piece, were made from 2010 to 2012, although I made some additional posts in that thread in 2013 which are not used for this blog post), with some further observations.  At the time of the first post, I had only seen the first movie in the series, but since then, and as I continued to post in the thread and time passed, I saw the penultimate movie offered in a special collector's DVD edition with a promotional price, and the others all available at the same time and in the same store, for reduced prices, so I decided to (ahem) bite the bullet and buy all of them (and then bought the final movie later, when it too came out), and so I eventually watched them all (the first time I watched the entire series was over a period of 24 hours or so).  In this connection, I should point out that I liked the first movie better on second viewing.

Be advised, if you have not read the novels or seen the movies, this post contains a few spoilers (not only for the Twilight saga, but also for the Underworld movies, which I discuss at the end of the post in connection with criticisms of the Twilight saga).




Introduction:

Those who know me well are aware that I'm a fan of Vampire literature, movies, and television shows.  Occasionally, the subject of the Twilight movies/books has been brought up, with people wanting to know my opinion of them.  I've spoken to some extent about these matters in the past, but there came a time when I found a comment on my profile from someone wanting to know if I'm "a fan" of the story, so I decided to respond in this way, and thereby be able to direct questioners to this discussion.  With the introduction out of the way, I shall proceed.



The Commentary:

I do not know that I would call myself "a fan" of Twilight, but at the same time, I do not believe that it's the worst vampire story ever written/filmed.  In fact, it was quite good, compared to some I've seen.   Indeed, I enjoyed the movies (I have yet to read any of the books).  I shall here respond to some criticisms I've seen and heard concerning the story.  I do not intend to comment much, if at all, on the criticisms I have seen and heard regarding the acting.

A lot of people claim to be annoyed primarily with the "sparkly vampire" aspect (I say "claim" intentionally, because I believe their genuine main objection is something else, and I'll come to that later), but, truth be told, in the movies, the sparkling was only barely noticeable, even when it was being emphasized.   It's an interesting twist on the vampire aversion to sunlight, and it doesn't merit the kind of hysterical criticism I've seen about it.   Part of why I say that is directly related to the next objection I will discuss.

The second thing people seem to be annoyed about is the idea that sunlight doesn't harm vampires, but most people don't realize that the concept of vampires being harmed/killed by the sun is a relatively new idea (less than 100 years old), and was first expressed in the 1922 silent movie Nosferatu:   eine Symphonie des Grauens (commonly known simply as Nosferatu, which was an unauthorized cinematic version of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, and, being unauthorized, was only very loosely based on that novel (the novel, in fact, includes a scene of Dracula outside in the street during daylight, a scene that was part of the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula, starring Gary Oldman as the Count).  Arguably, the sound of the cock crowing was what overcame Count Orlok, rather than the light of the sun (I say this based on the captions in the silent movie), and this idea of a cock's crow affecting "supernatural" creatures is consistent with folklore from various places in Europe.  Prior to the 1922 movie, the idea is found in folklore of various "supernatural" creatures being hampered, harmed, or destroyed by sunlight, but this did not specifically pertain to vampires (you see the old folklore reflected, for example, in Tolkien's The Hobbit, in which Trolls turn to stone when exposed to sunlight, an idea found in Scottish and Norse legends of Trows and Trolls).  That's not to say that the older stories do not portray vampires as not particularly fond of daylight, because some do, but none of them contain the idea of sunlight causing harm or destruction to a vampire.  As such, those who reject the Twilight stories' "new" idea of vampires not being harmed by the sun are actually embracing a new idea about vampires, and rejecting the older idea.  I maintain, therefore, that they should all mellow out and get past the baggage of a mere 91 years of the new idea of vampires being vulnerable to the sun.  Perhaps then they would be able to enjoy the story for what it is.  I have to admit, that although I think the sparkly vampire thing is an interesting twist on explaining why vampires might be averse to sunlight (which, as I have pointed out above, is an idea that is only 91 years old), I'm not terribly fond of the idea, but that's merely personal preference and should not result in dismissal of the story in its entirety.


As an aside, I would like to also point out that the idea of garlic having an adverse effect on vampires is the result of ignorance and superstition (although dismissing this as the result of "superstition" may seem ironic in connection with the idea of vampires in the first place!).  The belief derives from the practice of opening graves of suspected vampires in order to "vanquish" them, with those opening the graves wearing wreaths of garlic around their necks to ward off the arising effluvia of a decaying corpse (or, more accurately, as an attempt to cover the unpleasant scent with the supposedly stronger smell of garlic).  Over time, the original import of this practice was forgotten, and that ignorance, coupled with superstition, led to the idea of garlic repelling and/or harming vampires.  Since then, the idea has become fairly firmly ensconced within the Western Vampire Tradition, although instances of this idea being rejected have also been seen in the tradition.

The third objection which some have to the stories is the popular opinion that they are intended for an audience of teenage girls.  It is this reputation which I believe to be the genuine main objection of most who protest their disdain for the saga (and most of these people in my experience have been male), but these people are ignoring the Vampire Tradition itself, in favor of more recent depictions of vampires in film as "monstrous," savage, and wholly incorrigible (indeed, usually they're depicted as totally depraved homicidal maniacs, often extremely sadistic, and frequently nihilistic -- in short, completely ignoble and without any redeeming value).  These more recent films typically contain a lot of gratuitous violence and gore.

The Twilight movies (since more people are familiar with them than they are with the books) are, according to the popular reputation, allegedly "chick flicks," but the same "noble vampire" motif and/or "vampire love story" idea (whether romantic or erotic, or both) is found in earlier stories, television series, and movies, and few if any of them are dismissed out of hand as "chick flicks" or "chick lit."  A few examples include the television series Moonlight, the television series Forever Knight, the 1960s soap opera Dark Shadows (and Marilyn Ross' novels based on the show), and even, to some extent, other movies based on Stoker's work (the Bela Lugosi films, obviously, but also the more recent version starring Gary Oldman), to say nothing of older novels, novelettes, and short stories of vampires like Carmilla, by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, and "The Vampyre," by John William Polidori.  Earlier than those are various poems expressing the same notions.

I've also seen some people claim that Edward Cullen is a "copy" of Anne Rice's Lestat.  I would not view Edward as a copy of Lestat, however.  In some ways, Edward is more like Mick St. John of the Moonlight television series (although I like Mick, and Moonlight, much, much better than Edward and Twilight), or Nick Knight of the series Forever Knight, both of whom probably owe more to Barnabas Collins of Dark Shadows than any other inspiration (indeed, I suspect that the use by Stephanie Meyer of the name "Cullen" in her work is a direct nod to the name "Collins" in Dark Shadows).

Now there was a vampire!  Barnabas Collins, tragic, unfortunate victim, often violent to excess, mysterious, brooding, lonely, charming, romantic, not afraid to get his fangs bloody (although not desensitized to it nor blasé about it, either), dark, tormented, etc.

Thus, the Twilight series is soundly within an established "canon" of Vampire Tradition involving romance, eroticism, "noble" vampires (both literally, as in the case of Count Dracula -- or Prince Vlad, and figuratively, in the sense of "possessed of noble virtues"), the idea of "vampirism as curse" (literal, as with Barnabas Collins, or figurative, as with Nick Knight) from which the vampire wishes to escape, etc.  If these concepts are "adolescent" and/or "girly," then a lot of adult men who profess disdain for the Twilight saga and are infected with the disease known as "machismo" have to explain why they enjoy these other stories I have mentioned.  Although I am female, I have not been a teenager in a looooong time, and while I haven't read the Twilight books, and probably would not consider myself "a fan" (per se) of the movies, I have read and viewed quite a lot of vampire literature/films/TV shows, I did enjoy the Twilight movies, and wouldn't exclude the series from my DVD collection or my book library.  Indeed, I now have all the movies on DVD.

I would also contend that teen boys (and adult boys) who believe that blood and guts splattered all over the screen is what makes a vampire movie "good" and/or "authentic" actually have no concept of the Western Vampire Tradition.  They would be just as happy with a slasher pic, which is hardly the same thing as a vampire movie, and also a recent phenomenon.  I also consider most of these more recent "Horror" movies to be much more disgusting than frightening, due to this tendency to focus on gratuitous violence and gore, and thus unworthy of being given the "Horror" label.


If someone has a mere aesthetic preference that vampires should be "dark bloodsucking monsters in human form," I have no problem with that;  if, on the other hand, a contention is made that the noble/romantic vampire, who remains attractive (theoretically, at least, and I add this qualification because I do not find the boy who portrayed Edward Cullen to be all that attractive) even when she/he "vamps out," is somehow "inconsistent" with the Western Vampire Tradition, then even Bram Stoker himself would rise up and bite the person making such an assertion.   I might have preferred a different actor for Edward, but honestly, Robert Pattinson isn't that bad (he isn't gorgeous like Alex O'Loughlin as Mick St. John in Moonlight, but then again, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and his acting seemed better to me in the subsequent movies than it did in the first).

From the earliest stories in the Western Folklorismus Vampire Tradition (by the use of "Folklorismus," I intend the folkloric idea of Vampires removed from its culturally-specific, Slavic, Folklore and Legend context and the beginning of the Western Literary Vampire Tradition -- although it should be noted that similar beings are recorded in the myths, legends, and authentic culturally-based folklore of other cultures, including, for one major example, the Leannán Sidhe of Irish, Scottish, and Manx Tradition) and the Western Literary Vampire Tradition (which grew out of the Western Folklorismus Vampire Tradition and includes, more or less, or at least gave birth to, the Western Cinematographic Vampire Tradition), the Vampire was both appealing and appalling simultaneously.  The appealing aspects included being magnetic in a romantic and/or erotic sense, and being attractive in terms of visual appearance, as well as offering the lure of a form of immortality, eternal youth, and superhuman power (indeed, one of these powers is often used as an explanation of the lure of the vampire, the hold which she/he has over living beings, and that is a power described as "hypnosis" or, in some cases, "mesmerism").  The appalling aspects were primarily summed up in one idea: this being is a corpse -- a "living" corpse, perhaps, but nevertheless a corpse, who is cold to the touch, who rests in a coffin, but also, a corpse who feeds parasitically upon the living beings of his/her own species, etc.

As far as being "200 year old high schoolers with adolescent problems" (another objection I've seen), that is also hardly a new theme in the Western Vampire Tradition; indeed, in Anne Rice's celebrated Lestat stories, the reader encounters the child vampire Claudia, with her prepubescent problems.  What may be new (or at least perhaps atypical) in this "young vampire" motif is the concept that a person remains stuck at the physical (and emotional) age he/she was "turned" at;  earlier stories often (but not always) include a motif in which the vampire ages unless she/he feeds on blood.

Personally, I have been put off by the relatively recent depiction of vampires as changing in physical appearance when they "vamp out" to such an extent that they do not merely have fangs and glowing and/or red eyes, but also have some bizarre ridge in their foreheads as if they have alien ancestry or something, or have a reptilian appearance (although I did rather enjoy the first From Dusk till Dawn movie in spite of this, and in spite of the gratuitous blood and gore, because it had a good plot, and because Salma Hayek and George Clooney are exceptional actors), or otherwise appear distinctly non-human.  The idea that vampires can transform into fog or wolves or a swarm of rats or other things (or at least the idea that their "hypnotic" power is so great as to induce a mortal to perceive that they have so transformed) is old enough (although the vampire-into-bat transformation is also relatively new, but hardly inconsistent with the Tradition), but aside from the hairless, long-nailed, ghoulish-looking Count Orlok of Nosferatu (and the "noferatu-type" vampires inspired by that depiction), which (as I have already pointed out) is less than 100 years old, such an idea is far less consistent with the Vampire Tradition than the idea of attractive, noble (even heroic at times), romantic vampire.

Another thing I've seen criticized about the Twilight saga is that the vampires in the story are "vegetarians."  That term is often bandied about as if it means that the Cullens munch on lettuce and fruit, but those who use the term to dismiss the stories are either ignorant of its significance in the stories, or intentionally twisting the use of the term in the stories.  In the first movie (which I admit I finally watched only because people kept asking me what I thought of the series, it came on one of the Encore channels to which I had a subscription at the time, and I didn't want to continue to have to reply "I have no real opinion, because I've never read any of the books and never watched any of the movies"), the boy Edward explains that the Cullens refer to themselves as "vegetarians" because they refuse to feed on humans, but instead feed on animals (this is also not a new idea in the Western Vampire Tradition, although the use of "vegetarian" to describe such a diet may be new -- it's also ironic, and I appreciated that irony). 

Moving on to other criticisms, I've been told that the books are poorly written. I haven't read any of them, so I can't speak to that assessment.

I found the films enjoyable, but I wouldn't call the saga the "best vampire movie(s)," and I'm far from sure that I would even put it in the top ten.  However, when compared with movies in which "Dracula" beats his chest like an ape (I don't even remember which movie that was, and it may have otherwise been good, but that one scene was enough to cause my ex-housemate to leave the room in disgust, and I was also rather repulsed by the scene), yeah, it's superior.  Even some of the Christopher Lee movies have less-than-brilliant scenes, in which Dracula crouches in the corner and hisses.

I've also seen the character of Bella Swann (later Bella Cullen) criticized as one-dimensional or insufficiently developed.  A few aspects of the first movie, on first impression, seemed to portray that character in a way that I did not find pleasing, such as what I initially regarded as an almost neurotic reaction to Edward's intention to leave for her safety.  We get that the girl is "crazy" about him;  she doesn't have to be depicted as if she is literally crazy, with an unhealthy obsession over the boy.  She also should not be conceived as if she be merely a shadow to his supposed light.  However, after re-watching the movie along with the entire series once I had the final movie, I reconsidered this first impression in light of the fact that her parents were divorced, and I get that now;  she comes from a family that has been split asunder by divorce, which would be a bit of emotional facticity for Bella, and which baggage would explain her reaction to Edward informing her that he would be leaving for her safety.  Also, in the final movie, Bella is far more than a shadow to Edward;  indeed, she has become a force to be reckoned with, and every bit his equal (maybe even more powerful than he).  I will also, very briefly, touch upon criticisms of Kristen Stewart's acting, to say that I personally did not find her performance to be as bad as some have suggested.  She might not have as wide a range of facial expressions as Jim Carey (but who besides him does have a face that sometimes seems as if it's made of rubber?), but that's hardly sufficient cause to write her off as a "bad actress."

The plot is simple, granted, but that's the general plot for many "classic" vampire stories:   immortal, brooding, lonely, vampire guy meets beautiful, young, mortal girl, romance blossoms, some crisis occurs, vampire guy saves mortal girl (or, in a few cases, vice-versa), and they all live (or "un-die") happily ever after (presumably, although in some cases, such as the Twilight saga, there may be more than a single crisis).  The alternative plot in the "classic" tale is:  immortal, somewhat creepy, lonely vampire guy meets beautiful, young, mortal girl, attempts to seduce her, she is taken with him but already has a beau, nevertheless she gradually falls under his spell, her previously-existing beau (often with help from a "wise old man" archetypal character) then "rescues" her by "slaying" the vampire, and they all live happily ever after (except for the poor vampire, of course!).  There are certainly other variations on these tales -- Le Fanu's Carmilla, for example, which is older than Stoker's Dracula, and which depicts the apparently lesbian (or perhaps bisexual, since her sexuality was never explicitly defined in the story) Countess Mircalla Karnstein seducing a beautiful, young mortal girl, only to be thwarted by the girl's father (not beau), who has teamed up with a wise old warrior and the heroic descendant of a previous vampire-slayer hero.  The alternative plot (charming-vampire-as-somewhat-sinister-but-nevertheless-unfortunate-victim, although probably more frequently encountered than the charming-vampire-as-hero motif) I have given above is that which both Le Fanu and Stoker followed, and it was out of this plot that the hideous and repulsive, dark and monstrous, nosferatu-type vampire was developed by Henrik Galeen and F.W. Murnau in 1922.

I would like to hope that this puts an end to some of the pretense of the Twilight saga being somehow a radical departure from the Western Vampire Tradition in Literature and Film, and results in people examining their reaction to the saga honestly. More importantly, I would like to hope that this encourages some actual investigation of the authentic Vampire Tradition, rather than swallowing the more recent "insane, ugly monster" idea of vampires as if that be the genuine tradition. The references which I have provided here demonstrate clearly that the authentic Tradition is far more diverse and dynamic than that. If we go beyond the "Western" Vampire Tradition (primarily inspired/influenced by Slavic Folklore and Legend), the diversity increases significantly, but that's a topic for another time (and another author).

In conclusion, while I'm still not sure I would call myself a "fan" of the series (but rather, a fan of Vampire folklore, literature, and movies/television shows in general, with a few that I reject as heinous and/or ludicrous in one or more particulars), the Twilight movies have found a place in my DVD collection, and I'm not ashamed of their presence there.  I still regard them as soundly within the Western Vampire Tradition, and at least good representations of that genre.  I suppose that, eventually, I shall get the books and read them, and decide if I like them better than the films.

As a sort of postscript to all of this, I would like to touch upon another Vampire movie series here, namely, the Underworld movies (which I most certainly do rank among my favorite vampire movies).  According to some critics of the Twilight series, this was "the" inspiration for the Vampire versus Werewolf feud in the latter.  In fact, however, that motif goes back some distance in time.  There were even "classic" B&W movies in which "Dracula" and "the Wolfman" appeared to be enemies with some history between them, and fought to the death.  I found the Underworld movies very enjoyable (and I have all four in my DVD collection -- and rumor has it that a fifth installment will be forthcoming sometime in late 2014 or early 2015, so I naturally plan to get that on DVD as well), and perhaps better suited for a more mature audience than the Twilight movies, but I've seen them criticized as well.  In particular, I have seen the character of Selene criticized for not being "scary" enough.  Some of the critics have pointed out that (in the first two movies) she does not feed (except for the situation in which she takes the blood of Alexander Corvinus in order to learn from the memories contained in his blood and, seemingly, mutate or evolve to some extent) nor "Turn" others (except for the necessity of saving Michael from death), at least not on camera, but instead relies on more-or-less conventional weaponry (firearms, although often with modified rounds used as ammunition, and swords), and those same critics have suggested that this makes her, somehow, less than satisfactory as a vampiress.  Some have even offered what I view as chauvinistic criticisms, namely, that she "looks good" in a corset and leather catsuit, but doesn't inspire fear like a vampire "should."  Vampires and vampiresses in other stories and movies, however, have not always relied on their fangs and/or claws to kill, and have at times used more conventional weapons.  Further, I suspect that this pontification that vampires and vampiresses "should" inspire fear has more to do with the more recent portrayals of Vampires as homicidal maniacs without any control over their passions and appetites (and maybe, in the same [ahem] vein, with the fact that she doesn't become an unattractive alien-looking creature when she "vamps out") than it does with the earlier Vampire Tradition.  Nevertheless, Selene as a "Death Dealer" certainly has the right amount of "cold-blooded killer" attitude to be intimidating to most mortal opponents.  Skilled not only with fang and claw, but also with bladed weapons, firearms, and ordinary hand-to-hand combat, Selene is undeniably a formidable foe, and hardly unsatisfactory as a vampiress.

So there you have it, my response to many of the criticisms of, and my opinion of, the Twilight saga, based on my knowledge of the Western Vampire Tradition (which, if I do say so myself, is not exactly unsubstantial).  I'll also apologize here at the end for the bad puns in the post.  And now that the sun has sunk into the west, it's time for me to go out for the hunt, and slake my thirst.  Just kidding.  Or am I?  Muahahahaha!


This is an original work, and it belongs to me, regardless of where I first posted the material which I have gathered, revised, and rearranged to make this post, and regardless of any claims by the company which owns that website.
© Copyright 2013 by SuccubaSuprema (the owner of this blog, known more mundanely as "Gigi" and Giovanna).
All Rights Reserved.