Sturgotronic

RSS
  • About
  • Commenting Policy

To boldly be inclusive where no inclusiveness has existed before

Jan 13, 2012 By Elizabeth Anne Sturgeon in Equality, Feminism, Geek Culture, Intersectionality, Pop Culture, Science Comments Off Tags: geek, geek culture, Gender, gender bias, privilege, video games

To boldly be inclusive where no inclusiveness has existed before

Nerds and Male Privilege by Harris O’Malley

Just wanted to leave this awesome link here where it can be enjoyed thoroughly. Obviously problematic issue with the article: the language itself is not very self-aware in its cis-bias, and limiting the discussion to “this is how male privilege hurts only women” doesn’t include the gender spectrum. Additionally, there are very obvious biases in gaming and geek culture in general that aren’t just limited to gender issues, but also racism, classism, ableism, etc.

But!

For what the article set out to do, which was introduce the rampant male privilege in geek culture to a wider audience, I think it did it very well.

Some good quotes:

“Men also won’t have their opinions weighed or dismissed solely on the basis of how sexy or attractive they are. The most common responses a woman can expect in an argument – especially online – is that she’s fat, ugly, single, jealous, a whore, or a lesbian – or any combination thereof – and therefore her opinion is irrelevant, regardless of it’s actual merits. This is especially true if she’s commenting on the portrayal of female characters, whether in comics, video games or movies.”

“Geek society prides itself on being explicitly counter-culture; nerds will crow about how, as a society, they’re better than the others who exclude them. They’ll insist that they’re more egalitarian; geeks hold tight to the belief that geek culture is a meritocracy, where concepts of agism[sic], sexism and racism simply don’t exist the way it does elsewhere. And yet, even a cursory examination will demonstrate that this isn’t true.”

Also, I think this is a good summation of the importance of privilege-checking, and the attitude behind this can be applied globally:

Changing this prevailing attitude starts with the individual. Call it part of learning to be a better person; being willing to examine your own attitudes and behaviors and to be ruthlessly honest about the benefits you get from being a white male in fandom is the first step. Waving your hands and pretending that there isn’t a problem is a part of the attitude that makes women feel unwelcome in fandom and serves as the barrier to entry to geeky pursuits that she might otherwise enjoy.

(Also maybe we should think for a few seconds about how this can apply to the science community as well. As much as I love my roommates, I am also aware that my cis-female non-scientist opinion is much easier for them to disregard than the opinion of their cis-male, non-scientist friends. There are a plethora of reasons why the fields of science, mathematics and engineering have difficulty finding female scholars, but the continuance of this treatment is definitely not part of the solution.

Just saying.)

Why Jesus loves religion even if you hate it

Jan 13, 2012 By Elizabeth Anne Sturgeon in Christianity, The Church Comments Off

NOTE: I got very bitchy, oop.

So that one video has been going around like hotcakes, “Why I Hate Religon, But Love Jesus.” It got shared by my Facebook friends six times yesterday, some in favor (the Protestant) and some in opposition (the Catholic friends of mine). So I decided to finally check out the video that everybody was talking about.

My first impression? Hilarious ad juxtaposition, YouTube.

But on to the real commentary.

The beginning of the video sounded like things I’ve heard from atheists (“if religion is good, why does it start wars… build churches but fail to feed to poor…” etc) and so these arguments are nothing new to me. In the rest of the video, this person makes arguments that the Bible itself does not support religious persons by saying that the Old Testament calls religious people “whores,” that John the Baptist was ridiculed, that Jesus himself hated religion. He finishes by talking about salvation, going into what is basically the same spiel that God sought him out, God seeks people out, “[Jesus] is the work of God, [religion] man’s invention,” etc.

These are not new things to me. I’ve heard (and I know that I said probably a thousand times) that I wasn’t a “religious” person but that I cared more about my “relationship.” That at the center of my life was a relationship with Jesus and God, not a religion.

This is all, of course, bullshit, because nobody would know bullshit about Jesus without religion. So here is my spiel about how you can’t get Jesus without the religion.

I personally would say that any organized dogma is religion. If a person were really focusing on the relationship and not on the religion, then they probably wouldn’t be listening to sermons, going to church, reading the Bible, or having any connection to Christianity beyond a prayer life with Jesus and/or God and the listening thereafter. This would be a person who is completely devoid of all aspects of belief in the Bible beyond perhaps the gospels. This persons wouldn’t pay attention to what the Bible says about behavior or how one should live their lives beyond what Jesus said, which means that they would give all their money to the poor and go around trying to heal people.

So why doesn’t this person exist? Because you would have to ignore completely half of the things that Jesus said. Jesus was very tied to dogma, tradition and organized religion, and the Jewish faith specifically (although it’s worth noting that Jesus sinned many times in the view of the Jewish faith, since Jesus knowingly and purposefully disobeyed Jewish laws. This is probably where the idea that “he just fulfilled the Old Testament laws so we don’t have to follow them anymore” line of thinking came from, because otherwise Jesus can’t be seen as sinless). Though Jesus was very much against the Jewish people in many ways, the “religious” people that he abhorred were those church leaders who let their religion overpower their ability to take care of other people or have empathy for the people they were supposed to be leading. It wouldn’t be fair, however, to say that Jesus organized the faith that sprouted up after his death, but he did tell his followers specific instructions on how to proceed after his ascension, and that they should be spreading his gospel. Then there’s that thing about Jesus building the church on Peter, so there’s that.

So basically, was Jesus anti-religion? No. And is the Bible itself anti-religion? Fuck no.

The rest of the New Testament wouldn’t support this view either. Since the bulk of the remaining text after the Gospels finish are written to churches explaining how to run them and how people should behave under this new religion, I would venture a guess that the very early church leaders weren’t so worried about abolishing religion in order to have a relationship with Jesus.

The video made a reference about religious persons in the Old Testament being looked down upon, which is patently untrue. It would be fair to say that those of different religions were abhorred in the Old Testament, if by “abhorred” you mean “brutally slaughtered, raped and burned at the hands of the Israelites.” Since the Old Testament is basically a giant recollection of xenophobia, I would say that the Old Testament hinged on religion, on rules, on dogma and on tradition.

The problem with the idea of “I’m not religious, I just love Jesus” is that there is no way to even know who Jesus is without religion. The other problem with this is that if somebody cares at all about their relationship with Jesus then they are probably listening to the rest of the religion which means that they are still religious.

And can we just talk about the fact that, at the end of the video, the whole thing about salvation is basically saying “I hate religion! But what my religion teaches is still the only truth in the world!” Logic fail, okay.

I understand the point of view of “I don’t agree with everything that has been done in the name of religion.” That seems logical. I understand saying “I don’t particularly like the Christian religion, but I still believe in Jesus and in God, so I’m kind of searching for Jesus on my own now.” This isn’t a Biblically supported view, but many modern views on Christianity aren’t as well so that doesn’t seem important now.

But “I hate religion, but love Jesus because Jesus totes hates religion and, like, yeah we should care more about things and Jesus“?

No. Go read your Bible. It’s supposed to be your thing anyway.

White privilege at work

Jan 8, 2012 By Elizabeth Anne Sturgeon in Racism Comments Off

TRIGGER WARNING: OFFENSIVE AND RACIST LANGUAGE.

Okay. Tumblr obviously has its problems (how easy it is to, you know, fight over it?) but I have also enjoyed its easy format and how it lends itself to spreading social awareness. Tumblr is a little infamous for not censoring its users’ content much (hence why so many amazing blogs can exist to spread porn gifs) and in general this leads to a lot of good things, as its users aren’t as scared to post their unfiltered thoughts.

This backfires a little bit, though, when racism (and other forms of hateful prejudice) is allowed to exist.

Case in point: niggers.tumblr.com

Shortly after this Tumblr was found to exist today, other users flooded Tumblr support and staff e-mail accounts to report this Tumblr username and ask that it be taken down. The response from Tumblr staff was that they couldn’t do anything because of “freedom of speech.”

Obviously, people were not about to take this sitting down, and, as a social experiment, another Tumblr was created to see how long it would take for it to be taken down. deathtoallwhitepeople.tumblr.com was created.

Oh, if you click on that link and it says “not found,” it’s because it no longer exists. Half a day later.

(niggers.tumblr.com still exists, but its content has moved, because the user probably changed their username.)

Still waiting for confirmation that this is because Tumblr took it down manually. I’m hoping that maybe it was the creator who took it down themselves (just because it would mean that the world isn’t as terrible as it seems?) but, you know. We’ll see.

“Words only have the power you give them, so let me give them an oppressive and marginalizing power okay”

Jan 7, 2012 By Elizabeth Anne Sturgeon in Pop Culture, Racism Comments Off Tags: Classism, Flawless, Harry Potter, Racism

I realize that this is not Tumblr, but this was so beautiful and needed to be posted.

Not to sound racist, but…

I don’t date Muggles or Muggle-borns. It’s not racism, just a preference. I’ll date Half-bloods if they grew up in the magical world, though.

Is it true all Muggle-borns have longer wands?

It’s not MY fault Purebloods are naturally more powerful.

I’ve never personally experienced “Pureblood Privilege”, so it doesn’t exist.

How come you can call other Muggle-borns the M-word, but I can’t? How is that okay?

Purebloods suffered persecution from Muggles, but you don’t hear uscomplaining about it. Bootstraps!

I think it’s even MORE racist to assume that I have “privilege” because I’m pureblood!

ANYONE can be a Mudblood, not just Muggle-borns!

It’s not my fault Mudbloods often live up to the stereotypes!

Muggle-borns just happen to be more dangerous and prone to violence because they come from such un-magical backgrounds.

If you hate the Wizarding world so much why don’t you leave Hogwarts?

If a Pureblood calls you a Mudblood, it’s automatically racist? But you can call me a Bloody or a Death Eater and that’s NOT racist? That’s so unfair!

Words only have the power you give to them. Besides, Mudblood now means “friend” anyway, so there’s no problem with me using it! Mudblood Mudblood Mudblood!

How can I have pureblood privilege? I’m a Black wizard! You know the Wizarding world is Eurocentric. Wait…what’s intersectionality?

-Zorascreation, “Not to sound racist, but…” 

— Zorascreation

Really not equal, at all

Jan 2, 2012 By Elizabeth Anne Sturgeon in Christianity, Equality, LGBTQIA Comments Off

This was recently sent to me by a good friend, who is Catholic. We’ve spoken about this so I hope that nothing that I am going to say from here on out is a surprise to her, or seems like anything against her, which it isn’t.

I’ve been thinking a lot about an argument I’ve been hearing lately in favor of the Catholic stance on homosexuality having its own place. The overall idea, I’ve heard, is that homosexuality is a sin, but that homosexual people are just “called to singlehood,” which isn’t a bad thing because some heterosexual people are “called to singlehood” as well. (I’m going to ignore the fact that this seems to ignore anything that lies outside of “gay” or “straight” for a moment. Don’t worry; I’ll get to that eventually.) I would love to cite sources for this outside of the conversations that I have had with my Catholic friends, but Google is failing me at the moment, and I’m not sure if the Vatican website has a list of “official stances.” I looked up the Wikipedia article “Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism” but all that it has is the following:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

So I’m just going to base the following rant on that bit of information right there, on the idea that offering homosexuality a pass and a relegation to chastity is somehow humane and more loving and accepting than other denominations.

Well sure; I suppose that acknowledging that all homosexual people aren’t immediately going to Hell is a nice step in a less-asshole direction, but that doesn’t make it accepting, and it doesn’t make it loving, except by comparison (but really, everything is “accepting” and “loving” when put next to Westboro Baptist Church).

But let’s be honest here; this whole idea is stemming from some weird and skewed understanding that heterosexuality is not just the norm, but the default from which all other things deviate. But the truth is that sexual preferences, romantic preferences, gender identity, and other related identifiers don’t fall into neat packages of “just not heterosexual.” Sexual attraction in general is complex in ways that humanity doesn’t understand fully yet. There is such a wide variety in all of these identifiers (sexual preferences, romantic preferences, gender identity) that it is grossly inhumane to say “no, but the default position is being heterosexual and cisgender.” To me, that is as ludicrous and limiting as saying “the default person is white and has light eyes.” Making these limitations only marginalizes the lives and experiences of those who don’t fit into that particular mold.

That is what is so damaging about this stance. This idea where 100% of those who aren’t heterosexual have to be celibate (unless they can get away with having a heterosexual/heteronormative-looking relationship that the law will recognize as a marriage). “But heterosexual people are called to singlehood, too!” Yes, but the straight people can get away with marriage even if they are “called to singlehood” in YHWH’s cosmic, theoretical plan. Also, theoretically, not 100% of heterosexual people are “called to singlehood,” so one position is still being placed above the other. I don’t think that the stance that says that singlehood or marriage are somehow equal is defensible from the Catholic perspective; family and procreation are placed at such a high degree of importance that birth control isn’t allowed, just in case any sex could lead to a pregnancy. Marriage is clearly the position that is more expected, more honored, and more celebrated within Catholicism. The only time celibacy is seen as positive to the Catholic church is when it is accompanied by complete and total dedication to God (also known as “the priesthood,” where people listen to everything you have to say, or “the convent,” where people think that you either sing, fly or hit children with rulers).

What is the message that comes along with remaining celibate? “Good for you, you are able to control your impulses and desires in a way that some of us aren’t expected to!” What is the message that comes along with being “called to singlehood”? “Your life has a deeper purpose! The purpose is to focus on God and friendship, lest you ever experience companionship, love or lifelong commitment with another human. You are so much better than the rest of us who aren’t being held to this standard.”

Because what is the root of these things? The root is still that anything besides heterosexuality is inherently wrong, immoral, and impossible to accept. And when you take into account the fact that most people are born with their sexual preferences (or romantic preferences, or gender identity, etc) it’s no wonder why the next extension of this is that LGBTQIA people themselves are inherently wrong, immoral and impossible to accept.

The good news for all people is that all are sinners and thus wrong, immoral, and impossible to accept.

It’s no wonder, really, that LGBTQIA people are treated in this manner by the majority of organized Christianity. I just can’t give the Catholic view a pass.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »

Recent Comments

  • Robin on Not Christian enough to be a Christian
  • Palula on Listening can be cool, too
  • Palula on Talking about this matters
  • Palula on Science and theology and all that jazz
  • Dissonanz on Sick sucks

Categories

Latest Tweets

  • I'm being super subtle about it, I know, but I'm slightly on the excited side that Jose is home. Just slight http://t.co/do2utr7F # 2012/04/01
  • So THIS happened... @ Matador Bookstore http://t.co/4yQGOUNP # 2012/03/21
  • Photo: wockerjabby: http://t.co/itZe32Ks # 2012/02/12
  • Photo: unnaturalist: http://t.co/rtke6iHV # 2012/02/10

Recent Photos

Archives

Sturgotronic
© Sturgotronic 2012
Powered by WordPress • Themify WordPress Themes

↑ Back to top