wApr 4, 2010


Easter

Easter Vigil at any Abbey is pretty sweet. Not only was the homily superb (the abilities of a priest as a homilist will pretty much make/break him, in my esteem of him), BUT THERE WAS A GIANT TORCH TO LIGHT THE EASTER CANDLE. Seriously, that pole had to be 20 feet long, and there were GIANT FLAMES that made me fearful most especially when the dude tried to get the thing through the doorway. Easter Vigil: arguably the most bad-ass mass of the year (except for that one time at Pentecost when we purposely lit the baptismal font on fire).

On a more serious note, I really appreciated the homily. Easter is not just about butterflies and cute bunnies and candy. It means a lot because of the suffering that comes before it, because of the seriousness required by Lent. It's kind of the time of year to screw your head on straight, and then Easter comes and floods your heart with light, and you realize that Spring is here.


A discussion on whether 'The Hunger Games' was cribbed from the Japanese novel/movie 'Battle Royale.' People have pointed out the similarities in general premise to me before, but the argument made here lays out a series of incredibly specific things that happen in both. An interesting read, even if it doesn't convince you.

The Onion's AV Club had a nice article about A Room of One's Own, on its 35th anniversary.

I think that fan-made crafts like these are really cool. In addition to creations focused on by the OTW (fanfiction, fanart, fanvids), I think that crafts are really neat, too. I've been collecting lots of paper cut-outs of various fandoms, along with a few extra Buffy comics. I'd like to make my own, even though I'm not totally skilled in the realm of craft-making.

With everyone lying about what's actually in the Health Care bill, I found this Washington Post link useful: Answer 4 questions and find out what the Health Care bill means for you.

Also, really liked this Buffy Season 8 vid. DO NOT CLICK UNLESS YOU'VE READ THE TWO MOST RECENT ISSUES OF S8. For serious.


Help Out Your Fellow Fan!

--were_duck seeks recommendations for the WisCon Vid Show. Specifically, she'd like some AMV recs, as she's generally unfamiliar.

--meganbmoore seeks old school shoujo anime. Bonus if you can tell her how to get a hold of it, :D

--littlebutfierce both recommends and seeks more baseball anime.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 11:21 AM
0 comments



wMar 31, 2010


Because being called out on harboring child molesters is JUST LIKE being persecuted

I don't usually love Maureen Dowd, but I've gotta say that every time in the last two weeks that I've wanted to write a blog post about how much I despise Benedict XVI and the priests who represent the face of Catholicism to the world, she goes ahead and does it for me. It's just...UGH. IT IS HOLY WEEK, SIR. HAVE A LITTLE HUMILITY. Instead of saying shit like "We will overcome the people who are being mean to me right now!" How about saying, "I crawl on my knees and ask forgiveness for the horrible things I've done. AND NOW PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL FOR WHAT THEY DID."
I also liked A Nope for Pope.

I am so disgusted right now.

And the next time that someone asks me, "Why are you still Catholic?" or "How do you feel about that?" they will get kicked in the neck.

I FEEL REALLY GOOD ABOUT CHILDREN GETTING MOLESTED, THANKS FOR ASKING.

When congressmen molest boys, nobody says, "Shit, I'm going to stop being American!"
Nobody says, "Wow, doesn't that make you want to stop feeling patriotic?"
Nobody says, "Wow, so Mark Foley molested a boy. How do you feel about that?"
Because those questions are absurd and the answers are self-evident.

But when the situation is about a different aspect of someone's identity - their faith - THAT SHIT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, and it's okay to be abhorrently inappropriate.



.....OR IS IT?!

Labels: ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 7:14 PM
0 comments



wMar 21, 2010




A friend directed me to Maureen Dowd's article in The New York Times, which discusses the divide between Catholic nuns and Catholic bishops on the health care reform bill. (You should be able to read the article for free; The New York Times allows anyone to read a NYT article when it is linked to from a blog.)

On Friday, Tim Ryan, an antiabortion Democrat from Ohio, took to the House floor to say he had been influenced by the nuns to vote for the bill.

“You say this is pro-abortion,” he said to Republicans, and yet “you have 59,000 Catholic nuns from across the country endorsing this bill, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes endorsing this bill.”

For decades, the nuns did the bidding of the priests, cleaned up their messes, and watched as their male superiors let a perverted stain spread over the entire church, a stain that has now even reached the Holy See. It seemed that the nuns were strangely silent, either because they suspected but had no proof — the “Doubt” syndrome — or because they had no one to tell but male bosses protecting one another in that repugnant and hypocritical old-boys’ network.

Their goodness was rewarded with a stunning slap from the über-conservative Pope Benedict XVI. The Vatican is conducting two inquisitions into the “quality of life” of American nuns, trying to knock any independence or modernity out of them.

The witch hunt has sparked the nuns to have a voice at last. Vulnerable children were not protected by the male hierarchy of the church, which treated sexual abuse as a failure of character rather than a crime. The men were so arrogant it never occurred to them that they should be accountable to the secular world. In their warped thinking, it was better to let children suffer than to call the authorities, embarrass the church and risk diminished power.

Now the bishops think that it’s better to deprive poor people of good health care than to let the church look like it’s going soft on abortion.

Under the semantic dodge of ideological purity, the bishops also are doing the bidding of the Republicans, trying to kill the bill and weaken the president. But the nuns are right when they say that “the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions” and that its protection of pregnant women is the “real pro-life stance.”

The nuns stepped up to support true Catholic dogma, making sure poor people get proper health care. (Which would lead to fewer abortions anyway.)


I feel Maureen Dowd's sentiment in feeling fan-fucking-tastic that the Pope would rather bully American nuns with his heinous "investigations" instead of the pedophiliac exploits of his good old boys.

I think that a lot of people allow Catholicism to be defined by its most vocal and powerful members. But they do not speak for all Catholics.

Labels: ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 10:46 PM
0 comments



wNov 23, 2009


Beyond Anger (?)

A little while ago, I read the book Beyond Anger: On Being a Feminist in the Church, by Carolyn Osiek, R.S.C.J.

The book is about identifying as a feminist while also identifying as a member of the Catholic Church, which, as one might imagine, can cause feelings of anger. It's been a while since I read it, but I at least marked a few favorite passages. I think I'm just going to post them with brief commentary, and leave it at that. Hopefully you all find them as interesting as I did.

After giving examples of why a feminist might be angry in church (only males wear distinctive clothing that sets them off as officially belonging in the sanctuary, language of worship does not seem to include women, etc.), the author says of these moments of realization:
Such an event is a true turning point because it evokes a crisis. Life is not as it was before, and can never be so again. It cannot return to the comfort of denial. One's self image of loyalty and one's experience of oppression come to a screeching collision with one another and seem henceforth incompatible. How can I remain loyal to a person, institution, or tradition that has done this to me? But without that commitment, what do I have left? Who am I? This intense experience of dissonance provokes a predictable reaction.
She goes on to validate anger as an emotion, and then analyzes the destructive power of sexism, and its inherently sinful nature.
Sexism and patriarchalism have worked against both women and men in three ways. The first is to dehumanize women institutionally by disqualifying them on the basis of sex from access to the sacred and to leadership. The second way is to attempt theological justification of the oppression of patriarchalism, so that it would seem to be perpetrated in the name of God. The third way that sexism works against all of us is by promoting a "false consciousness" which permits both oppressor and oppressed to blindly accept and internalize their roles.

The dehumanizing of women is the dehumanizing of men as well, for if women are demoted to second-class citizenship, men are allowed the illusion that they alone are first class, that what is done is God's will, and that it therefore cannot be changed. In this way the Church participates in the structural violence of society against women, a structural violence which implicitly condones and even promotes personal violence against them by casting women as victims of male aggression.

Because we are properly speaking here of sin, "social and ecclesial structural sin," there is a moral conversion that is called for. Patriarchalism is a form of classism, the subjection of one social group to another. It is a hierarchiacal view of human society which makes dominance and submission the operant models of human relationship and renders true mutual presence to one another impossible. Religious patriarchalism further renders a true perception of equality before God just as impossible because social conditioning and the impact of culture are inescapable factors in the formation of religious persons and communities. It puts the ideal of "equal discipleship," which is all women are really asking for, beyond reach. It is a sin against persons as well as against God.

...

Beyond intellectual conversion there is yet spiritual conversion. Are we as Church being called to a deeper living of the way of Christ by the prophetic voices of women? It is not only a human sense of fairness that calls us to justice, but Christ himself. It is not only our experience and ideals of democracy that calll us to affirm the full human dignity of every person, but the demands of the Gospel as well. Women today are calling the Church to live what it says in this regard. The voice has become part of the ongoing revelation of God to us, as the mystery of that revelation unfolds in history.

She analyzes the power of Bonaventure's quote, "It is for man to act, for woman to suffer."
This belief, or, better, excuse, has provided religious justification for reinforcing the passivity of women by encouraging them not to follow the inspirations of grace but to become more fixated in their inculturated tendencies to self-hatred and self-doubt by seeking out suffering, self-abasement, humiliation, and self-denial as signs of God's favor.
Hence it is not easy to speak of a theology of the cross to women who have experienced this kind of oppression and have rejected it as illegitimate and unhealthy. A consistent position taken in this book is that our religious tradition is redeemable for women, and that its riches are worth recovering. An important and powerful symbol within that tradition is the cross. To abandon the symbol because it has been misused would be once again to turn over the power of interpretation to those who have misused it. Anger at the abuse is justified, but capitulation to the abusers is not. Rather, the symbol needs to be recovered, reclaimed, and reappropriated into a new context where it will no longer aid the cause of oppression and passivity, but the cause of free response to the claims of the Gospel. The cross can become for women a symbol not of victimization and self-hatred, but of creative suffering, actively embraced, which transforms and redeems.

She does describe three phases of the transformation of suffering in three changes; I'd rate myself at #2: mute, pasive acceptance / awareness and articulation of one's suffering, no longer hidden / organization for change.

Osiek most bluntly calls for action thusly:
The role to which women are called today in the Church holds many of the characteristics of the prophetic vocation: to speak and act publicly in the name of God to recall members of the community to their destiny and identity before God; to interpret the signs of the times; to condemn injustice; to keep before the eyes of all the vision of the reign of God in its full purity in the midst of historical compromises.
This book does a great job of validating and giving voice to the same feelings of anger that I have. However, the title lead me to believe that this book would go further into explaining what can be done to be a feminist while still going to Church, how to make the Church a more feminist place to be, etc., and I don't think that I really got that. I'm not sure what I expect from a book in terms of how to move beyond anger to productivity, but I guess I was expecting more than the 13-point list at the end, which included things like "have healthy outlets" and "be realistic." I mean, those are find things to take as advice, but not great for action, in my mind. I'm angry, a book was spent validating my anger, and then it just kind of flickered out.

Although written the year I was born (1986), this book still resonating with me really well. It's starting to creep me out, though, the non-fiction about the oppression of women written at the time of my birth (or before, as mentioned when I blogged about bell hooks not that long ago) says things that validate what I'm feeling right now so well. It's like history's spinning its wheels in a rut, never moving forward, but repeating itself forever. Creepy, and disheartening.

Labels: , , , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 9:03 PM
0 comments



wSep 6, 2009


Being political while slightly inebriated: always the right choice

Just e-mailed the man mentioned in this article with a subject heading, "Your Poor Decision."

My favorite parts of my e-mail to him include:

The text of the speech is being released on Monday (one day before it is aired), so your ultimatum of "It would be irresponsible of any teacher to introduce to her/his students material that the teacher has not screened, evaluated, found to be educationally sound" is erroneous.

I am sick and tired of people like you using the Church as a platform on which you can make your political statements, and which you use as an instrument to make other people conform to your own political beliefs (in this case, by using your power as a superintendent to censor information that is being offered to children in public schools).

and

As a superintendent, I would certainly hope that you have better things to do - as both a Catholic and as an educator - than come up with useless rules. The showing is not mandatory - schools are supposed to decide for themselves whether or not to show the address. You have taken that power away from individual schools needlessly.

I would soften my reproach if I could think of a single reason for you to ban the showing of the President's speech to students, but the truth is that no such reason exists. The only explanation is that you are personally politically opposed to President Obama, and you are abusing your position to manipulate the children who happen to be in your charge by denying them information to which they have a right.


I AM SO SICK OF THIS POLITICAL BULLSHIT IN MY CHURCH. Go feed the hungry! Help poor people! Stop sitting on your asses in offices figuring out ways to manipulate your herd of sheep, and instead learn how to tend to them. What a pathetic and useless waste of precious time.

But hey, considering the fact that our bishop made everyone watch his pre-recorded message on abortion, marriage, and stem-cell research IN AN ELECTION YEAR, and oh yeah, fired a woman because of her graduate thesis, I can't say that I'm surprised that this happened.

Bishop Morlino also serves on the board for School of the Americas. Classy.

Labels: , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 12:52 AM
0 comments



wJun 9, 2009


This post might be "too complex and nuanced for a typical web audience."

The last couple of days have been filled with anger, for me.

One involves a situation beyond my control, but leaves me feeling vulnerable and cheated by a faceless bureaucracy. Of course it will get sorted out for my personal situation, but it only reinforces my adamant belief that health care should be a right for every single person, and not a classist privilege accessible only to those who manage to find a full-time job or can afford to pay for their own health care out of pocket. What does it say about our society, if you can only gain access to medicine and technology that will make/keep you healthy if you have the money to pay for it? Isn't it bad enough for the unemployed or under-employed that they make very little money? Must we punish them further, by telling them that they don't deserve to be healthy? That, in some cases, they deserve to die?

And people truly argue about this? Fail.


I've also been thinking a lot about people in positions of power.

If you are in a position of power, and you see that the people over whom you exert power - the sheep of your flock, if you will - are not doing what they're supposed to be doing, which of the following do you think is the proper response to make your flock more functional?

A) Blame them for not knowing better (and be sure to blame other people for not teaching them better, willfully ignoring your own position of power at the moment).

B) Mock them while surrounding yourself with people who agree with you.

C) Ostracize them by making them feel ashamed or guilty, so as not to taint your tiny Type A flock of "true sheep."

D) Complain about them and how they are the reason that the group is failing as a whole. Make sure to not actually speak to them, tell them what you think what went wrong, or perform any action items to rectify what went wrong.

E) Point out to them what went wrong, and ask them what you can do with your position of power to ensure that it does not happen again.



On a lighter note, a friend of mine recently told me that she thought my Internet alias was "My Stick Eeper." I've had this alias for 8 years, and I never thought about it that way. It's supposed to be "Mystic Keeper," by the way; huzzah for aliases created at age 14.

If people want to start calling me "The Stick," though, I am okay with that.

Labels: , , , , , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 8:52 PM
2 comments



wMar 27, 2009


La!

I have updated my 101 Primer since its original posting two months ago. Nothing has been deleted, but more links have been added (mostly to communities), as well as a new section on "Race and Fandom."

The links to RaceFail posts are by no means even remotely exhaustive, but I tried to pick the ones I thought most appropriate for a 101 primer.



I purchased the following today, for $.50 a piece!

A Free Man of Color by Barbara Hambly
Fever Season by Barbara Hambly
A Hunger for Home: Louisa May Alcott's Place in American Culture by Sarah Elbert
Toward a Recognition of Androgyny by Carolyn G. Heilbrun
The Female Man by Joanna Russ
Writing and Sexual Difference edited by Elizabeth Abel
The Wounded Woman by Linda Schierse Leonard
Beyond Anger: On Being a Feminist in the Church by Carolyn Osiek, R.S.C.J.

Doesn't that last one sound amazing?! From the back cover:
What happens to a woman who has a deep faith and ardent commitment to her Church, and yet who because of her honesty and openness to truth becomes more and more convinced of the validity of the feminist critique of insitutional religion?

They must undergo a conversion which will transform them. It consists in embracing the cross, not as passive victims, but as free agents capable of sustaining the liberating and redemptive suffering that is necessary in order that their continuing presence in the Church can effect needed changes according to the pattern of the Gospel.

Labels: , , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 1:34 PM
1 comments



wFeb 28, 2009


The Life of John Paul II....IN SPACE COMICS!

So, as you might recall, one of my Lenten promises is to read something that helps me think about faith every day. The point isn't to read a certain number of pages per day, or books per Lenten season, but just to think about things I don't think about as often as I should.

Last evening, my boyfriend and I went to a branch of the library we don't normally go to, and I found a manga-sized graphic novel called The Life of John Paul II....IN COMICS! I found this hilarious, and checked it out, expecting to chuckle my way through. ....BUT I DIDN'T.

Pope John Paul II (often referred to as "JP II" by Catholics my age) was pope for a long time, and I'm sure I don't agree with everything he did. Still, so far as popes go, he was pretty cool. My favorite part of the graphic novel was a cute list at the end, of awesome things he did. Among the items listed:
He was the first Polish Pope.
The first pope to enter a synagogue and a mosque.
The first Pope to preach to a Muslim audience.
The first Pope to attend a soccer game and a rock concert.
The third longest pontificate in history, after that of Saint Peter and of Pius the Ninth: 26 years, 5 months, and 17 days.
He met with 1,475 Heads of State.

Most of the 90-page graphic novel focuses on his life before becoming Pope, especially living under Nazi control in World War II Poland. Still, I liked the collection of small pictures at the end, which provided images of things he did while Pope. Over pictures of him in places that are not Italy, the text bubble reads, Why does the Pope travel? The Pope travels because Jesus said, 'Go to the entire world.' I like that JP II put such an emphasis on being a visible member of the world, giving respect where it was due to people of other faiths and cultures.

It also addressed why he canonized/beatified so many people as saints: "Because the world needs examples." Non-Catholics are sometimes confused by the existence of saints in the Catholic Church, but I think it's pretty awesome to have thousands of people from throughout to history to look to as proof of being able to be so devoted to God while being human.

The book does a good job of not being very political. Most people assume that the Catholic Church is a place of lots of rules, and everyone in it agrees on everything, which is laughably quite far from the truth. Decisions made on every level are discussed and resisted and questioned. So a book on any Catholic figure has the potential to be really controversial in its representation of decisions and reactions. I think the only "bias" the book has is being anti-Nazi, but I don't really consider that to be a bias.

The artwork was quite beautiful, and the coloring rich. I ended up liking this a lot more than I expected to. I'll admit that I don't really know a lot about historical Catholic figures, and I probably should. Does anybody know any good books about Joan of Arc, fictional or non-fictional?

Labels: , , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 10:24 AM
0 comments



wDec 3, 2008


More Angry Blogging!

Abortion Disclaimer!!
If you decide to comment on this post, please focus your thoughts on the topic at hand. The subject of the post is about HOW abortion is discussed, not on the morality of abortion itself. Please keep your personal feelings about whether abortion is right/wrong to your own blog.



I picked up Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism from the library, and wasn't a huge fan. Rants are sometimes cool in blogs, but I guess I expected a higher caliber of analysis, and didn't get it. Of course, there were a couple of quotes in particular that sent me into a fiery rage.

Don't have sex with someone who is anti-choice - They have no respect for your body or your ability to make decisions for yourself.
Where is this "no respect" for a woman's body coming from? Desecration of a body is a serious wrong, and it's exactly what concerns many pro-life people about abortion - this discarding of one body in favor of another. The issue of abortion is weighty and important. I don't think anybody denies this. People who decide to have abortions are not flippant about it, even though they are deeply concerned for their bodies. Likewise, people who decide not to have abortions do not think "Well, I have to have this baby and that's that." Maybe their lives will suck more. It's a serious decision that women grapple with; I think that both the pro-life crowd and the pro-choice crowd can agree on that. Neither choice is easy.

I guess my point is that being pro-life is not about a lack of respect for the female body. Maybe it is for some pro-lifers - we are obviously not all the same. But I would seriously hope that none of you would dare to think that the female body is something I have no respect for, seeing as I occupy one myself. I view pregnant women and the babies they carry like Russian nesting dolls. There isn't just one body to be valued and respected: there are two.

Does this mean that I am not worthwhile enough to have sex with simply because I am pro-life? What a simplistic and awful thing to say!


Remember that anti-choicers, at the heart of it, are just folks who are horrified at the idea of pre-marital sex. They're not the arbiters of morality, just a bunch of folks who think girls should be forever virgins.

I see this all the time, and I find its placement in this book shocking, considering that Valenti spends most of the book deconstructing common straw arguments that people use against feminists, like "All feminists are ugly" and double standards and the like.

Where is her critical thinking here?! At the heart of it, pro-lifers are a bunch of haters who are disgusted by the idea of pre-marital sex, who think that women must always remain virgins?

I just....GAH. Not all of us are blindly shaking our moralistic fingers, okay? I guess I'm just disappointed in the author because she spends the entire book deconstructing statements that are easy to say, but pass your opponent off as a straw person by shaming them. But then she gos and pulls the same bullshit. Supposedly, the book should convince women to be feminists, but if I wasn't already a feminist, I would be so insulted that it wouldn't get me very far.

I am sick of feeling insulted wherever I go. In church, I feel like I'm walking on glass because someone might say something anti-gay that pisses me off, but I feel the exact same way when I'm at Room of One's Own or Wiscon or with feminist friends and people start talking about "those religious people."

Labels: , , , , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 9:22 AM
0 comments



wJul 2, 2008


Angel: through "Not Fade Away," aka, LAST EPISODE EVAR, :[

I'm having trouble with Blogger and Gmail and other websites on my personal laptop, as detailed here, so while I'm working things out, you might want to check my livejournal to keep up to date.

Anyway, last night's post on Angel.

Fucking Blogger.com isn't working for me again. And my laptop was being a good boy earlier today! Still not sure what's wrong with it, but it was functional for a while there.

WTF, I am sad to see this show done! I would really love to own season 5 on DVD. It still blows my mind that I loved this season so much, considering my love/hate relationship with the other four seasons of the show. Are the other four seasons worth it? MY DEVOTION TO WESLEY SAYS YES.

Anyway.

( Spoilers and caps lock lie behind the cut, as always. )

I hate that Joss Whedon and cast members keep making references to Shakespeare readings at Whedon's home. How much would I KILL for recordings of those?! They should sell them! People would buy them!

Does anybody know where I could *ahem* things such as the song's opening theme? Or Lindsey's "L.A. Song"? Or any of Lorne's karaoke songs?


I'm not quite sure what to do with myself, now that I've finished both shows. I feel strange, but extremely glad that I watched them. Everyone should watch Buffy and Angel! I've already started the first disc of Arrested Development, and intend to continue. Lighthearted is a nice follow-up to dumptrucks of angst, I think. I'd also like to rewatch Firefly this summer; I've only seen it once, and it was a couple of years ago. PLUS, this time I can blog about it. :D

Labels: , ,

scribbled mystickeeper at 9:39 AM
0 comments