Tuesday 10 April 2012
Sunday 8 April 2012
Why are abortion and contraception an issue?
Until the lecture on the subject I never gave the absence of abortion on television much thought. But as outlined, it really IS missing. Having not had cable for the last decade, my television watching has been selective and missing, and the only television abortion I can remember seeing is Claire's from Six Feet Under, which I thought was well done, at least in as much as it in line with my own pro-choice views. The continual punishing of the show's characters not withstanding, Claire was not penalized in any way for the choice she made. Thinking about the absence of abortion from television really puzzles me. But not as much as the current US debate over a woman's right to control her own reproductive system.
It's amazingly confusing that these "issues" are issues at all. Didn't we sort this out 40 years ago?
Isn't 40 years enough time for abortion to appear on television more than 11 times? The whole debate in the US right now is ridiculous. More than ridiculous; it's enraging. That a group of men, a "who's who in who doesn't have a uterus" as Colbert put it, would be deciding anything about a woman's right to control her own reproductive system is enough to give me a stroke.
Aside from the obvious fact that women have the right to their own bodies, and not old male senators and congressmen, study after study show that outlawing abortion does not lower abortion rates. It does, however dramatically increase female mortality rates. Are policy makers be ignoring these studies? Is the christian zeal blinding them to the numbers? Or worse, are dead women irrelevant next to the "immorality" of abortion?
If they have read the studies and are aware of the findings, and are dedicated to eliminating abortions, why are they also rallying against contraception? The studies have all also found that the easier the access to contraception, the lower the abortion rates are. I do understand that if your God is against both, so would you be, but we've got to be realistic. They need to wake up and realise that the only real way to prevent abortions is to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies. The lesser of two evils, I suppose.
Seems that logic isn't their strong suit.
I remember walking past Robarts one day recently and passing pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators in a stand off. This was a sign of things to come I guess (it was prior to the current US debate). At that time, I was surprised to see either group demonstrating. Pro-choicers have already won, seeing as abortion has long been legal, so I could figure out why they were demonstrating. As for the other side, I was struck by the same thought I always am when I see pro-lifers advocating: You're really wasting your time. My views that it's the woman's choice alone aside, pro-life groups are fighting against the murder of human beings. Most people, pro-choicers included would disagree that murder is wrong, but a fetus isn't, legally, an individual. Ergo, it's not murder. So, if they really want to make any change, trying to convince people who think murder is wrong that murder is wrong seems a foolish approach. Until the legal definition of a fetus is changed the point is moot.
And then there's Rush Limbaugh.
At any rate, contraception and abortion featuring so highly in the upcoming election(s), and as a result being highly present in the news media will surely effect television in the near future. As another, and now quite hot, topic in the ongoing culture way it can't really be ignored. We've already seen it make its way onto Friday Night Lights. Hopefully television can start to really address the issue and remove the "last" taboo. And hopefully, the republicans advocating the reproductive slavery of women won't make any real headway. The US needs more, and not less Planned Parenthood (who in supplying some 100 000 women with contraception last year theoretically prevented a million times more abortions than they provided, contrary to the claim that abortions are the bulk of what they do).
It's amazingly confusing that these "issues" are issues at all. Didn't we sort this out 40 years ago?
Isn't 40 years enough time for abortion to appear on television more than 11 times? The whole debate in the US right now is ridiculous. More than ridiculous; it's enraging. That a group of men, a "who's who in who doesn't have a uterus" as Colbert put it, would be deciding anything about a woman's right to control her own reproductive system is enough to give me a stroke.
Aside from the obvious fact that women have the right to their own bodies, and not old male senators and congressmen, study after study show that outlawing abortion does not lower abortion rates. It does, however dramatically increase female mortality rates. Are policy makers be ignoring these studies? Is the christian zeal blinding them to the numbers? Or worse, are dead women irrelevant next to the "immorality" of abortion?
If they have read the studies and are aware of the findings, and are dedicated to eliminating abortions, why are they also rallying against contraception? The studies have all also found that the easier the access to contraception, the lower the abortion rates are. I do understand that if your God is against both, so would you be, but we've got to be realistic. They need to wake up and realise that the only real way to prevent abortions is to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies. The lesser of two evils, I suppose.
Seems that logic isn't their strong suit.
I remember walking past Robarts one day recently and passing pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators in a stand off. This was a sign of things to come I guess (it was prior to the current US debate). At that time, I was surprised to see either group demonstrating. Pro-choicers have already won, seeing as abortion has long been legal, so I could figure out why they were demonstrating. As for the other side, I was struck by the same thought I always am when I see pro-lifers advocating: You're really wasting your time. My views that it's the woman's choice alone aside, pro-life groups are fighting against the murder of human beings. Most people, pro-choicers included would disagree that murder is wrong, but a fetus isn't, legally, an individual. Ergo, it's not murder. So, if they really want to make any change, trying to convince people who think murder is wrong that murder is wrong seems a foolish approach. Until the legal definition of a fetus is changed the point is moot.
And then there's Rush Limbaugh.
At any rate, contraception and abortion featuring so highly in the upcoming election(s), and as a result being highly present in the news media will surely effect television in the near future. As another, and now quite hot, topic in the ongoing culture way it can't really be ignored. We've already seen it make its way onto Friday Night Lights. Hopefully television can start to really address the issue and remove the "last" taboo. And hopefully, the republicans advocating the reproductive slavery of women won't make any real headway. The US needs more, and not less Planned Parenthood (who in supplying some 100 000 women with contraception last year theoretically prevented a million times more abortions than they provided, contrary to the claim that abortions are the bulk of what they do).
Tuesday 6 March 2012
Re: "A thought on suffering and the call for Christians"
In response to the post A thought on suffering and the call for Christians.
I like your friend Tom’s message very much! I wish that all christian organizations could embrace it. The world is full of suffering gone ignored, and in some cases intensified, by so many christians. But indeed helping to alleviate suffering, going to where it’s found and doing what we can, is something that christians and non alike should be doing. But there’s more!
An example: why that calcuttan baby was dying alone in the alley? Let’s say, for the sake of the example, that the baby is an AIDS orphan. The question then is where was Mother Theresa when that baby’s parents should have been educated about safer sex; learned that condoms effectively prevent the spread of HIV?
Now I know that is a hypothetical, but it’s not an outlandish example, and it serves well to illustrate my point. That point being that suffering shouldn’t just be dealt with, it can be precluded.
Now I know that is a hypothetical, but it’s not an outlandish example, and it serves well to illustrate my point. That point being that suffering shouldn’t just be dealt with, it can be precluded.
What a wonderful challenge that would be! Instead of simply feeding the poor and visiting the sick we could prevent the poverty and the disease.
We could create inclusive environments for all children, so they don’t end up hanging from the rafters in their grandmother’s barn because too many of their peers called them a fag. We could support the aforementioned safer sex education (even if so many churches don’t – I’m looking at you, Vatican), so that there are less orphans. The list is exhaustive.
I’ve noticed this trend with christian charity. Lovely and kind and thoughtful as it often is, it’s too often a bandaid and not a vaccine.
Monday 5 March 2012
re: Christian Apps… “There’s an App for That”
In response to Christian Apps... "There's an App for That",
The question of authenticity here is a moot point.
In class we questioned the sincerity of Gaga and Bieber who are combining their christianity (and a christian message?) with their music. If they have a mission to preach through their music, then the means (Gaga's sexuality and sexuosity, for example) and their rampant financial success certainly shed doubt on true motives. Unilver was also mentioned in one response to this post. They are another good example of questionable sincerity. In selling Dove products they are selling a message of female empowerment. But they also sell axe products, which was selling a message of extreme misogyny with commercials featuring vapid, slutty women tripping over themselves to be near men with a "nice" smell. To be fair to unilever, however, the more recent commercials feature both women AND men acting like vapid sluts.
The sincerity of companies like Surgeworks, whose goal is clearly not to missionize, but simply create and sell quality applications, can't be be called into question. Simply, they are a company with a goal to sell. To comment on the high price of their application I would hazard to guess (after a cursory glance at the product description on their site) that the application itself just costs more to produce. Dictionaries are in a similar vein, and they are in the same price neighbourhood. That's a publishing industry thing (thank you copyright?).
As mentioned by one respondent, the "confession" app is really interesting. It is reminiscent of the "indulges" given by the Catholic church. Rich sinners could pay the church and receive the slips of paper absolving them.. those who could pay could sin in abundance and still gain entry to the glorious kingdom of heaven! Clearly capitalist christianity is no new phenomenon.
Indulgences fun-fact and sidenote: the printing press, was initially harshly opposed by the Church. At least until Gutenberg had the clever idea to print the previously handwritten "indulgences", which meant that the Church could produce more in less time (and cash in, exponentially).
The question of authenticity here is a moot point.
In class we questioned the sincerity of Gaga and Bieber who are combining their christianity (and a christian message?) with their music. If they have a mission to preach through their music, then the means (Gaga's sexuality and sexuosity, for example) and their rampant financial success certainly shed doubt on true motives. Unilver was also mentioned in one response to this post. They are another good example of questionable sincerity. In selling Dove products they are selling a message of female empowerment. But they also sell axe products, which was selling a message of extreme misogyny with commercials featuring vapid, slutty women tripping over themselves to be near men with a "nice" smell. To be fair to unilever, however, the more recent commercials feature both women AND men acting like vapid sluts.
The sincerity of companies like Surgeworks, whose goal is clearly not to missionize, but simply create and sell quality applications, can't be be called into question. Simply, they are a company with a goal to sell. To comment on the high price of their application I would hazard to guess (after a cursory glance at the product description on their site) that the application itself just costs more to produce. Dictionaries are in a similar vein, and they are in the same price neighbourhood. That's a publishing industry thing (thank you copyright?).
As mentioned by one respondent, the "confession" app is really interesting. It is reminiscent of the "indulges" given by the Catholic church. Rich sinners could pay the church and receive the slips of paper absolving them.. those who could pay could sin in abundance and still gain entry to the glorious kingdom of heaven! Clearly capitalist christianity is no new phenomenon.
Indulgences fun-fact and sidenote: the printing press, was initially harshly opposed by the Church. At least until Gutenberg had the clever idea to print the previously handwritten "indulgences", which meant that the Church could produce more in less time (and cash in, exponentially).
Saturday 3 March 2012
"It's not a museum for good people.."
A very interesting and fitting YouTube video by rap musician Jeff Bethky was recently discussed on the NPR (Yay, NPR!) podcast on Pop Culture. It's entitled "Why I hate religion, but love Jesus."
Take a moment and have a look (also download all the NPR podcasts now!)...
Amazing. Even I was touched in some way.
Also notable is that this video (at the time of the writing of this post) has nearly 20 million views. According to the NPR podcast the video was viewed 2 million times overnight with an additional 4 million views the following day. It has also spawned over 200 response videos.
Why has this video been so popular?
I like to think that it's because there are lot of (young) christians who agree with Bethky. Religion is not working for them but they love Jesus and his message (as they see it). I would take this as further proof of what I've discussed in my previous post and response that christianity has changed.
While many might question the sincerity of Gaga and Bieber, as we all did in class, Bethky claims that religion is like "spraying perfume on a casket", that "there's a problem if people only know you're a christian by your facebook". Religion, to Bethky, is a "man made invention", it's the "infection". This is no new idea, of course. The culture wars of Reagan did, as we saw in class, polarize society; since the 80s denouncing religion has been a popular activity for pop culture and its icons. But Bethky isn't just denouncing religion, he's promoting Jesus, who is "the work of God" and "the cure". It's a meeting of two formerly separate camps.
As with Gaga's (oh how she dominates discussion!), this is a christianity that accepts flaws and sins. Akin to her claim that "Jesus is my virtue, and Judas is the demon I cling to", Bethky's christianity is only the love of Jesus and his forgiveness. As he states: "Now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness"; there's no need to "hide my sin, 'cause it doesn't depend on me, it depends on him [Jesus]". Perhaps the most appealing part of his declaration is that "salvation is freely mine and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merit, but on Jesus' obedience alone... he took what we all deserve [crucifixion], I guess that's why they call it Grace."
It's as though the new christianity has had the epiphany that humanity is weak. All people are sinners; they are flawed, sexual, and abusive to themselves and others. Even as "God's enemy and certainly not a fan," God still "looked down and said: 'I want that man.'" As I've previously argued there's a clear reason for this change. Aforementioned cultural polarization nurtured the development of a popular culture of sex and drugs and sin, and that popular culture in turn nurtures the growth of a christianity that can accept it.
Of course, being on the frontier of this neo-christianity and fully immersed in Corona's "hypermodernity" it's still very easy to doubt the authenticity of these neo-christian acolytes like Gaga, who appear to be, first and foremost, profiting. And not missionizing. Further, it would be negligent not to consider that this neo-christianity is appealing to a younger audience, which study after study has shown to be increasingly narcissistic. This "me" generation scores exponentially higher on the Narcissistic Personality Index than any previous generation. They like anything uniquely created for them alone, exemplified in L'Oréal's change from a slogan of "Because I'm Worth it" (delivered by a beautifully coiffed Morgan Fairchild) to one of "Because You're Worth it." The draw to a Jesus who "when he was dangling on that cross he was thinking of you" to a "me" generation is clear.
But that is a discussion for another post.
Truly I don't mean to promote Christianity per se, but it would be (as I've said before) thoughtless to ignore its potential. And whatever the reason for its appeal, this neo-christianity is hopeful. If "religion says slave, Jesus says son," the real message of Jesus to love one's neighbour shines through. Moreover, however imperfect we might be, "Grace is water, the church should be an ocean." This new christianity really can be a "a hospital for the broken."
Take a moment and have a look (also download all the NPR podcasts now!)...
Amazing. Even I was touched in some way.
Also notable is that this video (at the time of the writing of this post) has nearly 20 million views. According to the NPR podcast the video was viewed 2 million times overnight with an additional 4 million views the following day. It has also spawned over 200 response videos.
Why has this video been so popular?
I like to think that it's because there are lot of (young) christians who agree with Bethky. Religion is not working for them but they love Jesus and his message (as they see it). I would take this as further proof of what I've discussed in my previous post and response that christianity has changed.
While many might question the sincerity of Gaga and Bieber, as we all did in class, Bethky claims that religion is like "spraying perfume on a casket", that "there's a problem if people only know you're a christian by your facebook". Religion, to Bethky, is a "man made invention", it's the "infection". This is no new idea, of course. The culture wars of Reagan did, as we saw in class, polarize society; since the 80s denouncing religion has been a popular activity for pop culture and its icons. But Bethky isn't just denouncing religion, he's promoting Jesus, who is "the work of God" and "the cure". It's a meeting of two formerly separate camps.
As with Gaga's (oh how she dominates discussion!), this is a christianity that accepts flaws and sins. Akin to her claim that "Jesus is my virtue, and Judas is the demon I cling to", Bethky's christianity is only the love of Jesus and his forgiveness. As he states: "Now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness"; there's no need to "hide my sin, 'cause it doesn't depend on me, it depends on him [Jesus]". Perhaps the most appealing part of his declaration is that "salvation is freely mine and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merit, but on Jesus' obedience alone... he took what we all deserve [crucifixion], I guess that's why they call it Grace."
It's as though the new christianity has had the epiphany that humanity is weak. All people are sinners; they are flawed, sexual, and abusive to themselves and others. Even as "God's enemy and certainly not a fan," God still "looked down and said: 'I want that man.'" As I've previously argued there's a clear reason for this change. Aforementioned cultural polarization nurtured the development of a popular culture of sex and drugs and sin, and that popular culture in turn nurtures the growth of a christianity that can accept it.
Of course, being on the frontier of this neo-christianity and fully immersed in Corona's "hypermodernity" it's still very easy to doubt the authenticity of these neo-christian acolytes like Gaga, who appear to be, first and foremost, profiting. And not missionizing. Further, it would be negligent not to consider that this neo-christianity is appealing to a younger audience, which study after study has shown to be increasingly narcissistic. This "me" generation scores exponentially higher on the Narcissistic Personality Index than any previous generation. They like anything uniquely created for them alone, exemplified in L'Oréal's change from a slogan of "Because I'm Worth it" (delivered by a beautifully coiffed Morgan Fairchild) to one of "Because You're Worth it." The draw to a Jesus who "when he was dangling on that cross he was thinking of you" to a "me" generation is clear.
But that is a discussion for another post.
Truly I don't mean to promote Christianity per se, but it would be (as I've said before) thoughtless to ignore its potential. And whatever the reason for its appeal, this neo-christianity is hopeful. If "religion says slave, Jesus says son," the real message of Jesus to love one's neighbour shines through. Moreover, however imperfect we might be, "Grace is water, the church should be an ocean." This new christianity really can be a "a hospital for the broken."
Wednesday 29 February 2012
Something nice..
I write this as an aside to the required blog posts, but I just wanted to share the video.
Looking at the MRI images today in class reminded me of this "competition". It's very sweet. Enjoy.
Do You Have What it Takes to Win a Love Competition?
(Sorry; turns out I don't know how to embed a video, so a link will have to suffice)
Looking at the MRI images today in class reminded me of this "competition". It's very sweet. Enjoy.
Do You Have What it Takes to Win a Love Competition?
(Sorry; turns out I don't know how to embed a video, so a link will have to suffice)
Thursday 26 January 2012
re: Lady Gaga: a good Christian? Or a great Christian?
In response to the post: Lady Gaga: a good Christian? Or a great Christian?
The quality of Gaga’s christianity is possibly a sidenote. What seems more important is that she IS a christian while also a huge pop culture icon.
As I discussed in my latest post (http://smc305christblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/gays-christ-and-pop-culture.html), christianity and pop culture have changed one another. Popular culture now embraces christianity a lot more often; being a christian isn’t the ultra “lame” thing that is used to be. In turn christianity has accepted popular culture. This new christianity we have with Gaga involves sex and nudity (which have long been staples of popular culture - they sell very well). It’s also more human as the Judas quote illustrates; Jesus can be our virtue while we all accept that, as humans, we’re more like Judas.
Johnny Cash fits in well here. He is a former pop culture icon who is, as you quoted, “and artist who is a christian”, exemplifying the separation that existed when he was at his peak.
As I discussed in my latest post (http://smc305christblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/gays-christ-and-pop-culture.html), christianity and pop culture have changed one another. Popular culture now embraces christianity a lot more often; being a christian isn’t the ultra “lame” thing that is used to be. In turn christianity has accepted popular culture. This new christianity we have with Gaga involves sex and nudity (which have long been staples of popular culture - they sell very well). It’s also more human as the Judas quote illustrates; Jesus can be our virtue while we all accept that, as humans, we’re more like Judas.
Johnny Cash fits in well here. He is a former pop culture icon who is, as you quoted, “and artist who is a christian”, exemplifying the separation that existed when he was at his peak.
It seems logical that the more (positive) a presence christianity we find in popular culture, the more (positive) a presence of pop culture we’ll find in christianity.
While she likely refrained from using the term “christian” in favour of “religious” with Larry King to avoid alienating her religious fans who aren’t christian, it also could very well be the case that Gaga is playing a part. She’s a very clever woman, so even if she’s only pretending to be christian, the act itself just as faithfully reflects the new relationship between christianity and popular culture.
While she likely refrained from using the term “christian” in favour of “religious” with Larry King to avoid alienating her religious fans who aren’t christian, it also could very well be the case that Gaga is playing a part. She’s a very clever woman, so even if she’s only pretending to be christian, the act itself just as faithfully reflects the new relationship between christianity and popular culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You are quite right that the debate still rages about whether or not the fetus is a human being. In my post I stated that it wasn't an individual, not that a fetus wasn't a human being. That is an important distinction, apparently, in Canadian law. Abortions are legal because they are the termination of a being, acknowledged (I would imagine) to be living, unable to survive physically independent of its mother.
What I was getting at is that if the law doesn't consider a fetus an individual, and the criteria for "individual" is the ability to survive physically independent, then those who seek to outlaw abortion need to first change the legal definition of an individual.
Protesting outside of abortion clinics and accusing women of being murderers is clearly not the best means to that end.
Further, in light of stats and studies and number, the definition of a fetus and the morality of abortion are actually pretty irrelevant. Studies have indicated that abortion rates were roughly the same in countries were it is legal and those where it is not. So, outlawing abortion does not prevent dead fetuses, it only kills (sometimes drastically) more women. In light of this how can anyone who claims to respect life support outlawing abortion? More importantly, since that fetus is a goner either way, arguing either the legal definition of said fetus or the morality of abortion is a huge waste of time, money and energy.
This time, money and energy that could otherwise be spent on providing contraception, sex education and sexual health promotion, the only things shown to ACTUALLY lower abortion rates.
What really gets my goat are those who are against contraception AND abortion AND actually think that people can, and should, refrain from sexual activity. They seem to have zero reasoning skills and extreme tunnel vision. There are two important, static truths they are ignoring: people will never stop having sex; a lot of people don't want children. So, they need either a contraceptive or an abortion. It's just that simple. Personally I'm in camp contraception; prevention is always cheaper and easier than a cure or solution.
While I'm clearly pro-choice I could never fault the good intentions of those who truly believe that abortion is murder (and as I've said most people think that is wrong). I just need they need to open their eyes and realize that contraception is the only effective way to prevent abortions. So what I do fault them for is for is fighting against contraception, which is the most ludicrous thing happening in the US at the moment. It is incredibly serious, simultaneously sad and enraging, and illustrates the most important issue of the entire debate.
Birth control is not only used to prevent pregnancies but to treat brutal disorders like polycystic ovarian syndrome (which left untreated can be incredibly painful, lower your quality of life and leave you barren).
It's hard not to look at this campaign against contraception as a campaign against women (especially since I see no similar issue over Viagara/Cialis being covered by drug plans - a drug that is not multi-purpose). It doesn't help that a women who wants/needs to have her birth control covered by a drug plan is accused of being a "slut" with a "line-up outside her door" on national radio. Are men who get their viagara paid for subject to treatment? Would Rush like them to post videos of the sex they are having as well?
Obviously Limbaugh is an extreme example, but the statements were broadcasted to the world and he is not alone in his view. If this is the subtext of the contraception/abortion debate then we have a massive problem that gets my feminist blood boiling.
This in mind, it is easy to see how the treatment of abortion on television is only symptomatic of the treatment of women (on television). A million prevented pregnancies and a million dead fetuses can only pale in comparison to the subjugation of women, truly.