Stupid America... A Response to "Right America: Feeling Wronged"

So, I know it's been a while, but I just came across this documentary about the republican sentiment during the Obama/McCain campaign of 2008. The documentary follows the McCain campaign through various right-wing rallies across the country, focusing on smalltown/rural America. Most of those interviewed thought the country was doomed. If Obama was elected president, America would surely fall apart! Well, in my opinion, the documentary does prove that America's doomed. But not because one side won over the other; because political rhetoric has fallen to its lowest point, and the deep partisan divide prevents any resolution of issues.

Clearly, this documentary was not completely unbiased. It portrayed republicans as racist, uneducated, blindly patriotic, and downright crazy. Some of the people that were interviewed claimed that Obama was the antichrist; others likened him to Hitler. In the deep south, a few proud "rednecks" argued that America wasn't ready for a black president. I know that not all republicans feel this way, but even the more moderate responses in this documentary presented cause for concern.

Some opposed Obama for "political" reasons. Reasons like, "you shouldn't tax the rich because big corporations create the most jobs." and "Obama is trying to turn this country socialist." Few of the people in this video even understood what they were saying. One man had misspelled "socialist" on the back of his T-shirt and stammered to come up with a response when asked what socialism even meant.

It was clear that religion was also deeply tied to the republican party. The documentary portrayed pastors in churches advocating parishioners to vote for McCain; one woman passed out pamphlets to churches trying to convince people to vote republican. A lot of campaign slogans and T-shirts connected "God" to the republican party, Sarah Palin, and... the right to own a gun (yup). And if you attempt to argue with them, all they have to say is "it's in the Bible" or "God says so" and the argument's over. How's that for political rhetoric?

People were so angry in this video--- about all the wrong things. The documentary filmed peoples' responses to Obama's refusal to salute the flag or wear a flag lapel pin; they considered this to be the most vile, horrible anti-American thing they've ever seen. But when it comes down to it... is that what's really important? Wearing a pin? If they just want a strong white man to put on a pin and salute the flag, pretty much anyone could run our country.

Granted, this sampling was not necessarily a reflection of all republicans. It portrays the kind of rural Americans that go to political rallies and say memorably offensive things. Obviously, the people most likely to want face time with the camera are the extreme ones. But these people still exist. There are people out there who voted for McCain because they were sincerely convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ.

I know I have to take this kind of thing with a grain of salt, but the fact that these are real people just makes me want to close my door, pack my bags, and buy a one-way plane ticket to Finland. Stupid, stupid America.

Here is What I Think and You Should Think The Same Way

It's been quite a week and a half for me. With my recital in a week, as well as a huge life decision weighing heavily in my mind, I've got a lot to be stressed about.

But apparently, a lot of people are stressed about some recent political happenings, namely the HHS contraceptive mandate and recent compromise. (smooth segue, I know.) Many friends of mine have posted on facebook about this, with widely varying stances, and widely varying levels of research behind their arguments.... In this post, I don't aim to take a stance or argue against any of the claims made.... I will simply examine the phenomenon of posting politically/religiously charged messages on facebook.

Now, when I'm reading down my newsfeed and I see a post like "Together we can end abortion!" along with a link to a petition, I immediately judge that person. And not necessarily because I strongly disagree with their stance. I just wonder what they aim to accomplish by posting something like that. If their goal is to be annoying and advertise their personal views to their friendbase, they have succeeded. But for some reason, some people seem to think posting stuff like that will honestly spark discussion and get people thinking in a different way. But this is not what ends up happening.

What ends up happening is: about 15 of your like-minded friends like your post and 2 of them comment in agreement. One feisty adversary posts a response against your stance/argument, and a series of one-sided statements follow from either side of the argument, with very little compromise gained. Meanwhile, dozens of anonymous on-lookers giggle at how serious these two people seem to take themselves and the issue at hand. Case in point: the discussion about birth control that recently transpired on the wall of my high school's facebook group. One super conservative graduate posted a link to this article against birth control with the following comment: "totally don't mean to be controversial or even get my personal thoughts across, but as we went to catholic school I thought this might interest some of you guys. here's an explanation of the Church's view on contraceptives, which can seem crazy confusing, so yeah! http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2


Now, first of all... ignoring the glaringly obvious bias within the title "Admit it: The Church has Always Been Right on Birth Control," I challenge the assertion that this post did not mean to be "controversial" or "get her personal thoughts across." I fail to see how this post does anything but those two things. Now, the comments that followed are hilarious. Among some of my favorites: "contraceptives facilitate sexual promiscuity by eliminating natural, external detriments to casual sex." to which one person responded "I fail to see what is self-destructive about casual sex. Seems like a pretty good time to me." There is clearly no common ground even attempted between these two people. Obviously if you are opinionated enough to post what you think on facebook for everyone to see, you are set enough in your ways to not want to change your mind.

All that results is a good laugh from people like me who see the futility in discussing stuff like this on facebook. So, I guess, as far as the moderate third party is concerned, post/argue away!

On "New Feminism:" The Pope's "Progressive" View of Women

One of the greatest criticisms of the Catholic church is its archaic view of gender roles. Historically, the Catholic church has been oppressive of women for as long as it has been around; more recently, they have also rejected attributes of feminist movements, such as birth control and abortion. And still... to this day... women cannot be priests. Interestingly, the church has somehow recently convinced itself that it regards men and women as complete equals, and it rejects male "domination," as has been historically accepted by the church in marriage, life, and everything. The basis of this "New Feminism" is John Paul II's Mulieris Dignitatem, an apostolic letter on the dignity of women.


But upon reading this letter, all I concluded was that the church has done nothing except make a flowery statement that women have dignity. There is no mention of their changing role in society or of their capacity as professionals or individuals. There will be no change in the power structure of the church, and no change in the doctrines against birth control and abortion, which have been instrumental in the women's liberation movement during this last century.

One thing that the Pope asserts is that women and men are inherently different, and this biological fact should determine their identities and roles in society and family. The idea that a woman is made with the capacity to be a mother, according to the Pope, means that she holds inherent nurturing characteristics unique to womanhood. He calls it the "genius" of women: compassion, warmth, and humility. Feminists of the time criticized him for a view based on biological determinism, or the idea that your biological features determine your identity and capabilities. (Maybe that's because... that's exactly what he's saying.)

Now, let's say, hypothetically, that I could appreciate this as a form of "difference feminism." There are a lot of other feminist movements that do acknowledge different inherent characteristics of men and women. But my main problem with "New Feminism" is the emphasis on motherhood. A large portion of this letter is spent glorifying this motherly-nurturing idea of woman  (which, by the way is God's design). And to me, this does nothing but reinforce gender roles and the idea of a nuclear family. If any change is suggested by this document, it is to make husbands "appreciate" women for their feminine beauty and pain during childbirth. And also, for their inherent capacity to be mothers. (Which comes with the uterus, right? Because, mine came with a parenting manual. I don't know about yours.) I think in order for women to be considered equal, they must be thought of as more than just "motherly" and "nurturing." The mere potential for our bodies to give birth does not mean that every woman should have children, nor does it mean that our personalities are suited to "compassionate" tasks. It's sad that the Catholic church uses God and the Bible to reinforce gender stereotypes... and even sadder that women attach themselves to this message and call it "empowerment."

Here's what I say... I'll believe Catholic "feminism" when the Pope comes out and says it's just as okay for dads to raise kids as it is for moms. When the woman has the right to be fulfilled by a profession instead of rearing children. When women's capabilities are equal to men's and not defined by biology. Because while he doesn't come out and say it, the Pope is implying all of these archaic stereotypes under the guise of his "New Feminism." Maybe if more people could see through the poetic religious flower-speak of the Catholic Church, more people would realize what is actually being said.

Jane Eyre: Yet Another Reading! Commentary on Helen Burns

Over break I re-read Jane Eyre, interested to discover new things and see how the book seemed different in my current stage of life.

Even though it was maybe the 3^rd or 4^th time I’ve read the book, I was more emotionally invested in it than in previous readings, and certain characters and events struck me differently than they had before.

            One interesting change was my reaction to Helen Burns, Jane’s friend and role model at Lowood. Her humble demeanor and deeply religious outlook on life had always been positive traits for me in previous readings. But this time, I was a little bit frustrated with Helen, finding her passivity aimless and her transcendent attitude too idealistic. There are moments when Helen is punished harshly for minor faults, and she takes the punishment completely, admitting that she deserved it. While this shows humility and willingness to accept personal faults, it also goes too far, into what I would consider a failure to distinguish between lawful goodness and moral goodness. While it’s admirable to accept consequences, it almost seems like Helen fails to even see the frivolity and error in her superiors’ choices.

            Later, Helen advises Jane to forgive Mrs. Reed for her cruel actions, because, as Helen says, “life is too short too be spent in nursing animosity.” While Helen’s advice may lead to a personal sense of peace, I couldn’t help but think that this attitude also just perpetuates the injustice that she endures. By accepting her punishment and refusing to fight back, Helen’s oppressors would not change their ways at all; her life is simply an endless cycle of suffering which she does nothing to prevent. In the novel, Jane admires Helen, and Bronte treats her as a sort of saint. But I think that, on a philosophical level, I would have to disagree with complete admiration of Helen.

            While I’m sure Helen feels peace of mind with the idea that earthly suffering can be overcome, her outlook on life almost suggests that nothing on earth actually matters, which I think is wrong. No doubt, Helen’s take on human suffering comes from the New Testament, specifically Christ’s instruction to “turn the other cheek.” But this does not have to mean accepting punishment with no resistance to greater evil. In fact, some of the most ardent activists for human rights (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day) advocated acceptance of personal suffering. But, they also believed in a responsibility to end pointless human suffering on a large scale. It seems that Helen lacks this deep obligation to social justice, because she is too busy being "humble" and taking punches from her cruel superiors. Helen, to me, is a perfect example of the radical pacifist; to her, fighting injustice is pointless because it emphasizes feelings of hate and resistance, instead of peace of mind. But in the larger picture, Helen’s reaction of “peace” is actually more like “complacence,” and her understanding of resistance is limited to impulsive reactionary action.

            Overall, I think Bronte oversimplifies the dichotomy between Helen and Jane’s attitudes. Bronte suggests through Helen and Jane’s dialogue that spiritual transcendence and resistance to injustice are mutually exclusive, but more modern movements based on nonviolence suggest that the two can actually coexist.