Adventures in Women's Studies: Purity-Mongers Strike Again

Earlier this week, I guest lectured in a Gender and Pop Culture class using the research I did for my honors thesis--the Duggars, Quiverfull, purity movements, and the like. It went quite well as usual, and we ended the class by watching the new 45 minute documentary of Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth. She analyzes the obsession with a woman's purity and how this in fact sexualizes women and girls even more by placing their entire worth between their legs. Excellent watching. Find a way to view it.

In any case, it just so happens that Valenti was also just on Anderson Cooper debating with Randy Wilson, who is the male half of the couple that created the infamous Purity Balls, ample footage of which can be found on you tube. The usual arguments were made (brilliantly on Valenti's part, weak and insane on Wilson's in my humble opinion), and much merriment was had by all the feminists. Then they discussed a you tube vlog that went viral at the end of last year, posted by a 13-year-old Canadian girl about slut shaming.

Slut Shaming: the act of shaming a woman as a slut for her actual or perceived sexual activity based on rumor, attire, or knowledge of her personal life; most important to note is that it is solely aimed at women

She should be explaining this to a majority of the grown women I know. She breaks down how it contributes to sexism and rape culture and basically does the universe a service by putting this out there for her audience. The after-show "continued discussion" featured several audience members quietly losing their shit over how this 13-year-old was discussing sex and sluts. "She's so young." "She's advocating sex at 13." "She's too young to know anything about this." Okay, I usually have some issues with the current youth movement's insistence on supporting youth rights as extensively as they do. Don't get me wrong. I do think that young adults should be taken seriously, but they are still young adults, which means they do still need guidance and not all of them are as capable and mature as the movement would have you think. However, this girl is obviously quite knowledgeable, and the fact of the matter is that she never advocated sex for 13-year-olds. Not once. She never said she was having sex. Not once. She never even said that all her friends were having sex. Again, not once. What she advocated was well-informed, consensual, safe sex for those who are mentally and physically prepared to deal with the act and its possible consequences--an excellent thing to stump for as far as I can see. These women (and notice that it was only women) who basically attacked her mentally blocked everything she said except "have sex," instantaneously morphing a mature, well-thought-out, brilliant message that should be standard fare in any household into a blanket endorsement of child sex. In the process, they absolutely lost the message, one that they would have done well to absorb. There are kids having sex at 13 (and younger in some cases), and they have internalized the larger culture's ideals that a woman having sex at any age is a slut but a man is a stud. This is not new, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed as such by women of all ages.

Valenti's main argument is that by focusing our attention completely on whether or not a girl or woman has had sex or not is painting her as nothing more than a sexual creature, which is exactly what the purity movements claim that larger society does and what they claim to be fighting by shoving the purity ideal down the throats of people at every turn. What they need to understand is that no one is attacking the idea of not having sex. That's fine. But they also need to understand that they need to stop attacking the idea of having it, which is also fine. A woman is not only the area between her legs, not just the number of times she's been intimate, and not solely the length of time she remains celibate; she is a complex creature with wants and needs every bit as important as her sexual activity or lack thereof. In short, can we please start telling our daughters and sons that the body is an amazing thing that houses the wonders of the mind and soul, which are truly the markers of a person's worth, and that there are better things to worry about than how many times the kid in the next row has or has not done the deed.

Adventures in Women's Studies: The Duggars Revisited

So, we all know how much I miss academia. I have been going out of my skull with no research, conjugations, or papers to do, and so when Genevieve, a fabulous grad student who teaches Women's Studies, emailed and asked me to give my Quiverfull presentation for her class, of course I said yes. Next Wednesday evening I get to put that look of "omg are you serious?" into the eyes of Women's Studies students. It's great. I love it. Anyway, the class is a new one called Mothering in the 21st Century, so I know I need to update the PowerPoint I use--not to mention it just needs updating. I decided to catch up on my Duggar surveillance. I backtracked and figured out I've missed 3 whole seasons (!) and what there is of season 7. Horrors! Being without cable, I went trolling YouTube, and lo and behold there they all are in pieces. Voila! Duggar-thon! (Thank you duggarhayesfan for uploading all of them!)

I don't really have a solid point for this blog post, but we'll see what new and fabulous insights arise from my mini research session...

As I was about to post this, Michelle mentioned that she was taking Jim Bob to her Weight Watchers meeting...and then she said Jana had been going for quite a while. Jana is the oldest daughter and has never once in all the years they've been on tv been even slightly chubby. She's beautiful (I will be woman enough to admit having a small crush...calm down--she's over 18.), and I just don't know what to do with this info yet. I get Michelle going: She uses WW to lose the baby weight after each kid and get back to her pre-pregnancy weight. Fine. Whatever floats her boat. But I just don't know what to think about encouraging Jana to do it. That just screams messed up body images to me...

Duggar Fun (If a Bit Scary) Fact: If all 19 kids had 19 kids each, there would be nearly 7,000 grand-Duggars. Oh, VIsion Forum would love that...

Let's Talk About Sex: Abstinence and the Preachers of Doom

I've talked about my research on the Quiverfull movement on this blog before, but I haven't gone into one of the more tangential areas related to it--abstinence education. The reason this is on my mind today is a) I just finished a paper a few weeks ago on born again virginity, and b) I'm watching The Education of Shelby Knox on Netflix. Shelby Knox is a documentary about a high school girl in Lubbock, Texas who fought the school's abstinence only policy to try to lower the pregnancy and STD rates there, which were some of the highest in the country. The filmmakers interviewed Ed Ainsworth, a True Love Waits speaker and abstinence proponent; during the course of this interview, AInsworth commented that while he talked about STD's in detail in his presentations, he would never demonstrate how to put on a condom. Then he compared this to showing kids how to use guns.

Okay, first of all, let me say that I am well aware that the only 100% effective way to prevent STD's and pregnancy is abstinence; that is a no-brainer. However, it is incredibly naive to believe that all teenagers are going to save themselves for marriage, and let us not forget that since we in the LGBTQ community cannot, for the most part (depending on where we live), get married, this is effectively saying that we should live completely celibate lives. Neither is realistic. Yes, it would be a perfect world if all teenagers (and adults) for that matter were more careful with their sex lives. STD's, like AIDS, would not be as widespread, and there wouldn't be as many teen and unplanned pregnancies. BUT this is not going to happen. It simply isn't, but these "abstinence warriors" do not want to admit this.

I am not saying that kids should be told that as long as they use protection, it's free love for everyone. However, they should be taught the proper way to use protection, the risks involved in multiple partners, how their bodies function, what STD's are and what they do to you. Unfortunately, many kids don't know the first thing about any of this. Abstinence only proponents claim that if this sort of education were available, there would be more teen pregnancies and STD's, but the evidence shows otherwise. In schools, such as Lubbock, where abstinence is the only line, the rates are much higher than in schools with accurate sex education. Many say that it should be left up to the parents to teach kids these things. Maybe in a perfect world, yes, it should, but the sad fact is that many parents are either unwilling or unable (being products of the same close-mouthed systems as their kids) to provide the education that kids need. As I said in my Mr. Rogers post, kids are exposed to a lot of things, and parenting should be one of those. It is a sad fact that this is not the case, and yet these same parents who are neglecting to tell their kids anything are the ones screaming that parents should have the final line on sex ed at home. Make up your mind. Either parent or allow the school to do it for you, but don't leave these kids to their own devices with no information available. That is dangerous.

can we talk about jesus for a minute?: in which a frustrated religion student discusses problems with zealots

Okay, I must first warn my Christian friends that they may or may not be offended by the following blog entry. If you are, please know that this was not the intention, and I humbly ask that you lighten up and open your mind a bit....

Now, the story begins on a damp December evening, last night actually...A friend's facebook status was one of those "please repost if you agree" kind of things talking about how people are trying "to take the Christ out of Christmas," etc. I, for some unknown reason likely having to do with sleep deprivation and general aggravation, decided it was a good idea to comment and impart some Yuletide knowledge. All I said was that, as I (and many others) understand it, if any of the nativity tale is true, it isn't possible for Jesus to have been born in December; also, the Christian observance of Christmas was superimposed on the Pagan celebration of the birth of Mithras, who was also, incidentally, said to bring light to the world. Two fairly common facts that even a lot of more liberal Christians don't dispute. Well, youd've thought I pissed on a Bible and spit on a crucifix. I was told I was "full of it" and basically that "ideas" had nothing to do with her faith. She implied that I'd attacked her faith and religion and that she expected the same respect she afforded my beliefs.

Where to begin? The implication of attack? Refusal to acknowledge the historical issues of one's religion? The self-righteous overtones? How about the notion that faith and ideas are mutually exclusive? *sigh*

First of all, let me say that my comments were in no way intended to attack anyone's faith. Even when I was Christian, I revelled in telling people about the Pagan origins of Christian holidays. It isn't about undermining faith; it's about knowledge. I fail to understand how learning about your religion's historical and cultural underpinnings is problematic. By ignoring and denying these, you are in fact denying that religion has a basis in daily human life, when really that's ALL it's about--how we as humans interact with one another and attempt to understand the Universe. I don't think I would want to be a part of a faith that was so divorced from my life that the acknowledgement of a few historical, cultural, or literary revelations could destroy it.

My other big contention with this is the self-righteous assumptions made--not just by my friend but by many Christians. It seems to be quite all right for Christians to make whatever statements they wish about other religions or lack thereof, but if anyone outside their faith dares to talk about Christianity, it is automatically an attack. Guess what? Some of us are simply fascinated by religion and our critiques should not be seen as all-out warfare on you and your religion. If your faith isn't strong enough to survive a little debate, that is not my problem, it's yours.

Lastly, I actually do want to talk about Jesus. My personal faith does not recognize him as the son of any god, except in the way we are all children of the Goddess and God. However, in his teachings, there are things that mesh well with my ethics; what modern Christianity has done with those teachings usually does not. I have no issue with someone following Jesus or being Christian. Hell, I've known Pagans that see the historical Jesus as a face of the God. What I do have a sincere problem with, besides the general misuse of what were actually a few awesome ideas, is the way that many Christians have made Jesus, or rather specific beliefs about him, so sacrosanct that discussion is not possible. I don't want to convert you, I just want a conversation and for you to realize that the man and the originators of your religion were HUMAN and that it did not evolve in a sacred little bubble but alongside human civilization. Therefore, historical and cultural information is important to your religion and faith.

One last thought: everything is based on ideas. Just because it's religion, it isn't exempt. Someone once had the IDEA that following Jesus might be cool....I'm just sayin...

...And another generation begins...

As most of the television-watching world knows now, the Duggars now have their first grandchild--Mackynzie Renee Duggar--daughter of oldest son Josh and his relatively new wife Anna. According to the news reports, they couple welcomed their new baby in their home with a midwife and doula in attendance. While on some levels, I applaud this, I also wonder where it may lead.

In the Quiverfull movement is a smaller subset known as freebirthers. They begin having babies at home with a medically trained midwife and/or doula but then progress eventually to completely unassisted births with only the father "catching". Some people would say that this is fine, given that millions of women in other countries especially do this everyday. However, consider the recent case of Carri Chmielewski...she had an unassisted homebirth. She ignored all of the warning signs that it was a difficult pregnancy and looked to be a difficult birth by saying that God would protect her and the baby. The result was that the baby died and Carri ended up in the hospital in critical condition.

Freebirthing may not be an issue in many cases where the parents are well-prepared and knowledgeable and the birth is unproblematic. However, in cases such as the Chmielewskis, there are obvious issues.

Christian Psychotics, Episode 3: ...and they just keep coming:

The Duggars announce their 19th child!

Okay, most everyone knows that I am studying the Quiverfull people for my honors thesis. The Duggars on TLC, though they never use the word, are a perfect example of this movement: complete rejection of all birth control (so they say, but I'll get to that in a minute), strict gender roles, the whole nine yards...As of now, they have 18 kids, hence the name of their show (18 kids and counting), but Michelle and Jim Bob have just announced the impending arrival (doom?) of their 19th child. This one is due in March, just five months after their first grandchild is supposed to arrive. According to their book, while the Duggars eschew any conventional form of birth control, they do follow Hebrew Bible injunctions about abstinence after birth--40 days after the birth of a boy and 80 days after the birth of a girl. In the loosest of math, she could be pregnant even using their own system, but my question is SHOULD she be?

I am a card-carrying feminist and a firm believer in the power of choice, even if it is not a choice I would make for myself. However, it is worth wondering whether this is a true choice, especially for the girls raised (brainwashed?) in this movement...

Christian Psychotics, Episode 2: Extending Their Sentences

If you follow me at all, you know that I am studying Quiverfull and that general brand of nutcase. In the course of gathering resources, I got myself on the email list for Vision Forum, a group formed by one of the most-high weirdos himself, Doug Phillips. Today, I received an email promoting a new branch of their homeschool products: CollegePlus! (The exclamation point is theirs.) as a low-cost option for further education in the homeschool community. On the surface, this may be a good thing. One testimonial claimed to have received her bachelor's before the age of 18 and paid only a total of $6000 for it. I'm here to tell you that that is a STEAL! $6000 wouldn't pay for a semester for me here--no joke. Thank you Goddess for student loans! Anyway, as I manuevered around the information on the site, it dawned on me what the creeping discomfort I was feeling was coming from...

One of the major reasons that Quiverfull families homeschool is to remove secular influence from their kids' lives as much as possible and keep them in the home as long as possible (generally until they get married)--especially the girls. Very rarely do you see anything in Quiverfull literature promoting college education for their girls, or even their boys for that matter. The Duggars actually talked about this briefly on an episode. Jim Bob and the girls said that they wanted to be midwives (for which there is apparently a Christian school) or missionaries. Neither of which requires a secular college education. Even among the Duggar boys there wasn't really one who wanted to do anything involving college. Now, I'm not saying that every single person should go to college. There are a lot of people who don't want to and have perfectly wonderful jobs. That is not the issue.

Quiverfull girls are sheltered beyond anything I have ever seen. They are considered not just a daughter but their father's daughter until the day they get married and then they become not just a wife but their husband's wife. Then, usually as quickly as possible, they become not just a mother, but their children's mother. Homeschooling is the norm, and most don't appear to go to any university--religious or otherwise. By giving these parents a college homeschool option, they may be allowing the girls to have a further education, but what sort of education? Most of the homeschool curriculums are character-based, rather than actual subjects, though those do get taught incidentally. I haven't gotten all the info yet, but the college courses seem to be similar--an escape from the "secular immorality" of regular college. So, even though they appear to be getting the higher education many believe is necessary, I am not sure it is what one would call comprehensive. And what exactly are they going to do with it? Unless they break away from their family's beliefs, which many do not, they will have a BA from CollegePlus!, but it amounts to an "MRS degree".

More on this when I get the special info packet...

Biblical Sex and the Fools Who Promote It, Episode 1

I am obsessed with Religion Dispatches, a fabulous site with tons and tons of articles about pop culture items, books, movements, etc. that are religiously inclined (or atheist as the case may be). Today I was reading an interview with Dagmar Herzog, author of Sex in Crisis: The New Sexual Revolution and the Future of American Politics. The image they placed alongside the article featured a sparkly bra and panties set from the Christian covenant marriage site Marriage Vineyard. Of course, seeing as I am studying this particular sort of Christian psychotic, I went surfing over to check them out. In the process of checking out the sexy wares they are peddling,I came across a free pdf of a book What the Bible Says About Sex. Of course, I downloaded it. One chapter in particular has given me serious pause: "Sex Before Marriage, Prostitution, and STD's".

At the beginning of this chapter, they list the 6 items specifically forbidden in the Bible/Old Testament; number 6 is "rape of an engaged or married woman (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)". My first thought was "what are the implications of that statement for single women? Can they just be raped willy nilly?" A few sentences into the first paragraph, I got my answer:

Seduction of an unengaged virgin is addressed in Exodus 22:16,17 - the penalty is to pay the full bride price and generally marry the girl. Rape of an unengaged virgin requires marriage to take place and the full bride price to be paid. (Deuteronomy 22:28,29) and he may not divorce her ever. The man gets stuck with a hurt, angry woman for life. Thus the penalty for sex before marriage- is marriage.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? So, let me get this straight...if you rape an engaged or married woman is specifically dealth with as being forbidden. BUT if you rape an unengaged virgin, HIS punishment is to marry her. I have heard of women condemned to marry their rapists, but never from an American Christian source. The kicker is the fact that "the man gets stuck with a hurt, angry woman for life." Okay, what about the victim? They obviously aren't considering this a punishment for her, and do you want to know why? She is a non-person until married. Not an exaggeration, people. All of the literature I'm reading talks about women as pre-married and a furture bride. The woman is never a person until tethered to a man in marriage. She is her father's daughter, a burden to unload at a reasonable age onto some willing schmo, who may have been her rapist apparently...

yeah, gay people are bringing marriage way down with our committed voluntary relationships and crazy ideas about wanting to raise kids...more on this as the research unfolds

duct tape those puppies down: a response to the modesty survey travesty

So, my dear friend Meghan sent me this link : the rebelution modesty survey a while ago, and I finally got around to digging through it. Basically, it was a survey given to Christians about what constitutes modesty and what constitutes a "stumbling block" (an obstacle to one's faith). They called it "an exciting, anonymous discussion between Christian guys and girls who care about modesty". I call it a hot mess. Let me first say that I do not think this survey is a crock because it promotes not dressing like a skank. I myself do not care for the skank phenomenon among young women just on personal taste. This could be due to the fact that I was raised by an older woman from the hills of Alabama. I don't know, but I digress. My issues with the survey stem from something much different...

Exhibit 1, a 24-year-old's response to the open question, "If you could say one thing to your sisters in Christ about modesty, what would it be?": "Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Please, please, please take a higher standard in the ways you dress. True, we men are responsible for our thoughts and actions before the Lord, but it is such a blessing when we know that we can spend time with our sisters in Christ, enjoying their fellowship without having to constantly be on guard against ungodly thoughts brought about by the inappropriate ways they sometimes dress. In 1 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul presents believers as the members of one body - we have to work together. Every Christian has a special role to play in the body of Christ. That goal is to bring glory to the Savior through an obedient, unified body of believers - please don't hurt that unity by dressing in ways that may tempt your brothers in Christ to stumble."

Honestly, I don't think a detailed response is necessary for anyone with any good sense, but here goes: WTF! So, even though the guys are ultimately responsible for their thoughts and actions before God, it is STILL the woman's responsibility to make sure he doesn't find her attractive in the least. Some may say to this first example, "well, dressing skankish is a bit wrong for a good Christian girl"...okay...

Exhibit 2, "It is a stumbling block when a girl reaches into her shirt to adjust a bra strap." You try wearing one of these things all day and see if you don't need to adjust. We're not talking about reaching down the front of your shirt to adjust the girls in their respective cups...just reaching into the shoulder of a shirt to adjust the strap is a problem.

Exhibit 3, "Showing bra straps, even unintentionally, is a stumbling block." I will admit that I don't like seeing bra straps, not because I think it's "immodest", but just because I don't like it. But they aren't talking the intentional use of a regular bra under a racer back tank top. They include the accidental showing of a strap. Things like this actually have very little to do with being "sexy" or anything of the sort. This is a ridiculous regulation designed to keep women constantly worried that they are being a "stumbling block" to someone. You can't worry your pretty little head about individual freedom if you're freaking out about bra straps.

Exhibit 4, "Seeing a girl's chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block." I don't know if these people understand the female physique very well, but the girls move when you freakin breathe! Let alone when you walk. If your chest is large, there is not a lot you can do to hold it down all the time. There are bras that help a lot, but short of duct tape a la christina ricci in now and then, they are not going to stay put one hundred percent of the time. Why don't they just suggest double mastectomies at baptism and get it over with.

And finally, a few of the ones that made my jaw drop with consternation:
*"It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she's just hanging out on the floor or on the couch with he friends." I wonder if it's a stumbling block if they're in a hospital bed?
*"Nude colored nylons are a stumbling block." But it is also a stumbling block to wear skirts that show the calves, so ankles are apparently uber-sexy...can't even look at them through panythose...
*"Skirts made out of many layers of semi-transparent material to form an opaque skirt are a stumbling block, regardless of length." but...it's opaque...what the hell, man...is it the dance of the seven veils thing or what...
*"Jeans are generally immmodest even of they aren't tight." I dare them to tell me that huge baggy jeans are immodest...prove it, seriously.

I will leave the rest for you to discover, but I think you get the idea...None of this is really about women's faith. It's about men not wanting to be held repsonsible for their own thoughts and actions. This is unfortunately not found only in the Christian community. Any time a woman is raped, her clothing, location, and purpose in being in that location are autmatically called into question...it would not surprise me in the least to find that a majority of men who think along the lines of this survey argue that it is a woman's fault if she is raped. After all, she may have been wearing jeans...

book life 3: jesus is coming, look busy

Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture by Daniel Radosh

I picked up this book because it's tangentially related to my honors thesis topic...evangelicals in any capacity fascinate me anyway. And given that I grew up in what I've always called the area directly below the buckle of the bible belt, this is a culture not unfamiliar to me. Radosh, on the other hand, was in completely new territory. His book covers everything from the growing American obsession with virginity to Ultimate Christian Wrestling, a new one even on me. While most of the topics covered were amusing in an odd sort of way, they were also frightening as hell. Evangelicals are one of the most politically and socially vocal and active groups in the United States, as can be seen by the fairly recent Prop 8 and Amendment 2 fiascoes in California and Florida, respectively. The fact that their creeds and manifestos are slipping into everyday usage without much of anyone noticing is more than scary, it's dangerous.

Take the chapter on virginity...Radosh quotes a book by pastor Dale Conaway called Sex: The Spiritual Laws in which he calls the hymen a sacred seal put in place by God. "If the seal is broken, it can reveal an intruder was present and that product tampering may have taken place." [emphasis mine] First, a woman's body is related to a home, a structure for someone else to occupy and fill with what they see fit, and is then likened to a PRODUCT, an object to be bought and sold. Problematic does not even begin to start to maybe cover this. This is all part of the insistence on abstinence as the only option for unmarried people. It gets bizarre and even more appalling when he continues into discussion of sex ed in public schools.

We all know that the religious right has a sincere problem with anyone learning anything about sex that involves more than "don't do it", but what most don't realize is that the abstinence only groups that have won and are teaching, are handing out flawed information. A 2004 report on commonly used abstinence curricula found that 11 of 13 of them had misleading or just plain false information. Some of the insanity includes: "pornography causes brain damage and premarital sex depletes a chemical necessary for forming a permanent bond with one's spouse". The doctor that came up with that last one was appointed to run the Bush administration's women's health programs.

Definitely a worthwhile and useful read for anyone interested in evangelicals and the spread of the insanity they breed.

ok, so i'm a member of this Tallahassee Pagans email group. i joined forever ago to keep up with gatherings and hopefully meet like-minded pagans in the area so that maybe i wouldn't feel like the only little pagan on the block, as i usually am...i don't post, and generally, i just lurk and scan the happenings...a few days ago, someone posted this garbage called "hello, i'm a witch", and i am pissed off to say the least...it's kinda long, but in order to get the full effect, i'm posting the whole thing...bear with me...

"Hello, I am a Witch," says the man sporting a pentagram the size of an SUV, wearing all black and just waiting for some one to call him out for being different. My god! He will kill my cat and steal my babies. I won't hire him/ be his friend/have further dealings with him! Now lets try a different scenario: John just got a new job and he is getting along great with every one. He shows that he has great work ethic, contributes new and helpful ideas, and he is dependable and trust worthy. After working at his job for a few months, some religious topics come up in the break room and John is asked his opinion. "Well as a Pagan I believe…” In which situation does it seem more likely that some one would be open to learning the positive side to a way of life they are not used to? As Pagans we hold the responsibility for others opinions of our entire community. Stereotypes are everywhere. Chose not to contribute to them. John, the regular guy, just gave a whole group of people a reason to trust the Pagan community more than they might have already because he presented himself as part of the mainstream society as well. The other guy just added to the, "Those freaks all dress the same, and act out. They are up to no good. STAY AWAY." I am not saying not to wear you favorite Pagan jewelry, or not to disclose that you follow a different path to your new friend. I am asking you to think about how you are representing the rest of us when you do these things. If you are the only Pagan that some one knows then your personality traits, be they flaws or wonderful merits to your character, become a stereotype that they will associate with the next Pagan they meet.

Think of people in a different religion. Pagans so often have angst with Christianity. The main reason is that most Christians they have come into to contact with were not the "norm." Maybe you met them in the mall and the first words out of their mouth were, "Do you know Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?" followed by hassling to listen to their spiel. Maybe they came to your doorstep to tell you about their religion. Maybe it was a co-worker or classmate that always talks about uncomfortable topics to see how you would react. Those people's actions could easily take over your opinion of Christianity if they were the only Christians you ever encountered. Luckily, they probably are not. You probably have the opportunity to know many great people that just happen to be Christian, not people who are defined by their Christianity. However, Pagans are not as numerous, and you may be the only pagan some one knows for quite a while. Do you want that person to think that Pagans are religious zealots who define every aspect of their lives by their religion? I would hope you would rather them think that you are an
everyday guy who just happens to be Pagan.

So many times I go out into the Pagan community for a meet and greet of other local pagans and I come back with a bad taste in my mouth. I see exactly what I just described above, but it is in our circles. Pagans who enjoy stirring up trouble. They feed off others attention so they act out. People notice. They also notice the pentagram around their neck. Many times the people like this are only "Pagan" for the attention so even if the people noticing them decide to ask about Paganism or Wicca the "attention getter" would not really know what they were explaining. Sadly, the rest of us are on our best behavior and we do not get noticed. The only recognizing being done is for those who don't deserve it. A common saying goes, "It takes one "aw sh**", to erase a thousand "atta boys." People always remember the bad over the good. It would be so amazing to see a society where a Pagan was the same as any one else and we did not have to worry about these things.

A lot of people get hung up on the fact they should not have to act a certain way or be sensitive to what a Christian might think if they do this or that. I know you should not have to. I know it is wrong to be judged. You are being judged though. So, now, I ask even more of you. Something that I think many people will not like. Censor yourself.
When out in public watch what you say about Paganism. You may know what is involved in "casting a spell" or "invoking the goddess" but Jane Doe in the grocery Isle does not. Hearing tidbits of a conversation you are having with your buddy about a ritual you did the other day is probably unsettling for some one who does not know what you are talking
about. It can also be the cause of untrue rumors and gossip. By the time Jane Doe is finished telling about her encounter with you the church down the street may be holding a service about how there are local witches summoning demons from hell and poisoning
the local duck pond.

Now I challenge you with what might be the hardest thing yet. If some one confronts you directly about your religion or beliefs looking for an argument, WALK AWAY! Walk away especially if you are in view of other people. You may know you can win. You may even think you can change their mind about Paganism. You will not achieve either however. They approached you with intent on being right so in their mind they will be no matter what you say. If there are on lookers you will both seem immature for your dispute. It can only lead to negative energy and scuffed up feelings and egos on both sides. Here is the alternative I offer you. Send them a letter outlining what you believe, make it sweet and understanding. Then they cannot provoke you to say something you will regret. Also, you win. You showed maturity in the situation. They may be so impressed that actually listen to what you had to say in your letter. So you say, "I don't do any of that stuff. I am good, why did I even read this trash?"
Well then I ask you, "What do you do?"

If we, Pagans, don't need people out there stirring up negative talk and publicity for us then what do we need? Pagans who stir up positive attention for our side. Pagans raising money for charity, Pagans cleaning up the environment, Pagans volunteering at their local hospital or building homes with habitat for humanity. We need Pagans taking up leadership roles in our community. We need to be getting noticed for all the right reasons. I don't care how poor or busy you may think you are you can find time or money to give to a worthy cause. You will not regret it. I have had some of the most rewarding experiences of my life helping others. I challenge you! Don't be showy about what you believe; other people do not like that. Remember what you do changes peoples opinions of you and others. Be discrete in what you talk about it public. Don't try to stir up trouble. Walk away from arguments. Make a positive difference in other peoples lives so they have higher standards for the rest of us. Be that nice person who just happens to be Pagan.

do you see why i'm pissed off? first of all...just because i or anyone else happens to wear all or mostly black and chooses to wear a pentagram, does not make us the fool who goes bashing around looking for christians to attack...i am that lots of black and a pentagram kinda girl but anyone who knows me can tell you that i don't go looking for a fight. you bring me one and i will have it out, but usually i'm that "nice person who just happens to be pagan"...i understand that there are those in our community who give us a bad name, but i'm here to tell you...i have met just as many if not more "broom closeted" pagans who give us a bad name as i have "craft" pagans dammit...

i have to stop there...this is awfully short given the length of the cause, but i spent twenty minutes responding to them, and i'm pooped...just wanted to vent a little...i guess it just goes to show you that fundamentlism is everywhere...just in different ways

The True Definition of Gay Rage

In one particular gay-bashing/murder case a few years ago, the perpetrators/defendants/evil morons tried to use a defense of "gay rage". Their definition: they were uncontrollably enraged by the victim having supposedly hitting on them. My definition: the feeling an lgbt person gets when they read crap like that and what i read today.

In the spring, I'm starting an honors in the major thesis on the quiverfull and purity ball movements among modern American evangelicals. In searching for resources, I read through some of the Duggar family website (see TLC's specials and reality show) on which Michelle mentions a "Christian medical doctor". Intrigued, I searched the web...lo and behold there is an organization for them, the Christian Medical and Dental Association (cmda.org). They have various crap lying about, and I found their ethics statements on homosexuality. (see www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality&CONTENTID=4089&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm)
If this is the kind of bullshit fundamentalists are being fed, no wonder they hate us and think we can't handle marriage or that we'll destroy the world at some point. I quote:

"Homosexual relationships are typically brief in duration. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the structures necessary for healthy marriages, families and society. Men who commit homosexual acts have a high incidence of promiscuity, child molestation, and sexually transmitted infections. Homosexual behaviors burden society with increased medical costs, increased disability, and loss of productivity.

Homosexual behavior can be self-propagating. Some homosexual groups and individuals engage in active recruitment. A child who is sexually molested has an increased likelihood of later engaging in homosexual acts. There is also an increased incidence of homosexual activity among children raised by same sex couples. Adoption into such environments puts children at risk.

Legalizing or blessing same sex marriage or civil unions is harmful to the stability of society, the raising of children and the institution of marriage. If the only criterion for marriage were mutual consent or commitment, there are no grounds to prohibit polygamy, polyandry or incestuous unions." [emphasis added]

Are you kidding me? I mean really, are you fucking kidding me? This is what causes TRUE gay rage...this is why the top of my head feels like it's going to blow off most of the time...These are licensed medical and dental practitioners, and they are spreading these lies! They are in positions of authority for people, and what do they do with it but spread this...someone tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem to be against some sort of oath that a doctor should take? maybe not, but dammit WHY not!