McCall's has a new dress pattern up, called simply "Princess dresses". It doesn't have the Disney mark on it. It does not use the word "Cinderella". Clearly it must be 'not' the dress worn by the live-action Cinderella in the new movie. McCall's has a habit of doing this, and to be honest, it makes me giggle. Last year, we had 'not' Elsa, a dress with a sheer upper bodice and a train that started just under the arms. Before that, we had 'not' Merida, a princess-seamed green dress with white elbow and shoulder puffs.
Well, I'm about to do it to you guys. I am about to make one of those posts where everyone knows what I'm talking about, but I am going to get pretty far before identifying it plainly, and I am not going to delve into the details at all. Frankly, I don't need the details to make my point.
King David, despite being described as a man after God's on heart, did some pretty dreadful things. He lusted after a woman who was not his wife. He sent for her and had sex with her. Then he got her husband killed, when her husband refused to help cover up for her pregnancy. That is arguably pretty dreadful stuff with pretty permanent results. Of course, he did not escape punishment. God sent a prophet to explain why he had done wrong, and the child died. Was this 'enough' punishment? Was it within the statute of limitations? Should God have allowed King David to learn his sin through a prophet he already knew, instead of, say, sending in someone who was unconnected to the King? What about their second son, Solomon? Was God wrong to have given Solomon the kingdom? Was it a sign that David had not 'repented enough'? King David and his son have been dust for thousands of years.
Should we forgive King David? What crime has he committed against us?
There is another man who has been dust for slightly less time. His name was originally Saul of Tarsus, but he was renamed "Paul" after his conversion. He wrote an awful lot of the New Testament and spoke clearly on a variety of sins and evils, including most of the New Testament verses against homosexual behavior. Although he did not engage in homosexual behavior as far as we know, he did hunt down Christians and kill them before his conversion. He considered himself the very best Pharisee of Pharisees at a time when that was basically the most pious thing you could be. He was even celebrated for his piousness. He had to understand that he was doing wrong, and change his ways.
Does Paul's sin make his lessons on sinful behavior irrelevant? Should we take his writings seriously?
Both of these issues are making the rounds in recent days, due to the revelation of actions committed by a young man when he was a teenager. This should indeed be a controversy, but it should be an entirely different kind of controversy than the one I see floating around article comments and chat rooms. This should be a dialog about the problems that lead to inappropriate sinful behavior and the proper criminal justice system response when the perpetrator is underaged. Instead, it has become a two-prong argument, and both prongs seem geared specifically towards targeting Christianity rather than the actual sinner.
The "King David prong" can be summed up as a movement I have seen in recent years geared towards punishing people for the 'sin' of "Not Living Up To Our Expectations". In it, someone is judged, not by whether he acknowledges his sin as wrong or tries to justify it as right, but whether he has dared to hold himself to a standard that he has violated with his behavior. In this 'brave new' situation, you are better off to keep your (and others') expectations low, to ensure that you do not fail, than to aim high and miss your mark - even if your actual shot lands much higher than it ever would have managed were you to keep your expectations small. These are the people who excuse the sin of people like Bill Clinton and Lena Dunham because the perpetrators maintain that they have committed no crime, but do their best to drive out any pastor who has admitted to adultery, acknowledged his error, and asked for forgiveness. This is the exact opposite of what Christianity should be about.
Think about yourself for a moment. Never mind other people's sins. Think about your expectations of yourself. Think about other people's expectations of you. Because I am a Christian and because my sins are generally not severe in modern society and not obvious to a casual onlooker, some people have this notion of me as this perfect sweet excellent woman, and I hate it. If I try to note that I'm not really all that wonderful, they take it as modesty. In this present day, I am downright afraid to have people take that view of me. I never know if they are going to turn virulently upon me, if I should have a sin revealed that actually horrifies them... not for the sin itself (and utterly regardless of my response to it), mind you, but for the new, manufactured 'sin' of "Not Living Up To Their Expectations".
Why do you think God used King David? Why do you think God went after Saul of Tarsus? Why do you think God chose the Israelites, a group of such unruly, stubborn, imperfect people that they kept getting showed up by pagan Romans who had more faith in Christ than the very people who had been awaiting His arrival? Do you think maybe God wanted to teach us that He can make perfect where we stumble? That God can use people who don't "Live Up To Expectations"? Christianity is not about a bunch of perfect people talking about the way we should live. Christianity is about a bunch of sinners finding out that God is patient and loving, and that His laws come from Himself. That leads us into the other prong.
We could call the second prong the "Saul of Tarsus prong". In this particular case, it centers around homosexual behavior, but it could really be used for any convenient sin. Unlike the "King David Prong", this one primarily springs from non-Christians, and it, too, misunderstands what Christianity is for.
Paul's writings show that he was very aware of his own sins and failings. Despite that, he wrote an awful lot about what was sinful and what wasn't, and what was proper behavior for a Christian and what wasn't. Did anybody ever question the appropriateness of a man who used to drag off Christians to their death in saying that the 'stronger brother' should not burden the 'weaker brother' and the 'weaker brother' should not condemn the 'stronger brother'? Why would anybody listen to someone with a "thorn in his flesh" when he says that all have sinned and that eternal life comes through the grace of God? We certainly hold people up to a similar standard today. Should a man who committed adultery (and repented of his sin) be allowed to teach about marriage? Should a woman who had an abortion be allowed to run a pro-life organization? Should a teen who got out of a gang be allowed to tell other teens how to stay out of gangs?
The whole point of being a Christian is that you are holding yourself to God's standard. You are failing to live up to God's standard. You are repenting and receiving forgiveness for your sins against God's standard. Here's another way of putting it. Would you go to a dentist who has cavities? Well, perhaps instead of looking at his mouth, you should listen to his words. If he tells you that the American Dental Association recommends that you brush twice a day, should you decide that the American Dental Association is wrong because he doesn't brush twice a day and he has gingivitis? Of course not! In fact, making that conclusion is, in debate, called "ad hominem" - it is what happens when you attack the bearer of news rather than the originator. So should someone who has engaged in sexual sin and repented of it be allowed to become the bearer of God's news about homosexual behavior? Of course! (And here I finally drop the name.) Josh Duggar does not speak against gay 'marriage' according to Josh Duggar's authority. Josh Duggar speaks against gay 'marriage' according to God's authority. Of course, it's so much easier to pound Josh Duggar into the ground than to go up against God... but you must be aware that Christianity is a place for sinners who repent, for people who miss the mark and wish they hadn't, for people who know that they are sick and are seeking out the Physician. If you want a religion of "perfect people" who are telling you "how to turn yourself perfect", go seek out Scientology. God's Law is about what works. Christianity is about what happens to you when you realize that you can't do it by your own power.
And eventually, when you stand before God and He says, "Why didn't you listen to me?" it will do you no good to say, "Because I didn't like the looks of the bearer of Your message."
Monday, May 25, 2015
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Get out of the way and let us work
Let's talk about washing machines for just a moment. What kind of features do washing machines have? They let you choose your cycle. They let you customize your cycle if necessary. Then you start 'em up and off they go. Many washing machines are advertised as being "quiet". The quietest machines tend to draw the most interest. Imagine if someone tried to market a washing machine that sent alerts to your phone and beeped a tone for each part of the cycle, so that it notified you when it was rinsing, spinning, agitating, rinsing, spinning... How many people would buy it?
I don't want my washing machine to tell me what it's doing! I use a washing machine so that I can freakin' dump in my load and press two buttons and walk away! It tells me when it's done, but since my laundry area is down in the basement, I usually don't even hear it. My washing machine is my servant. I want it to shut up and do its job so that I don't have to.
How about operating systems? I'm a definite computer geek (used to work as a software engineer, actually), so I know operating systems. One of the biggest mistakes that Microsoft made at one point was integrating Internet Explorer too deeply into Windows. It complicated the use of the machine and hurt people who wanted to choose a different web browser. Microsoft had to back off and understand what an operating system is for. Users don't want to have to think about their operating system. They don't want to have to fiddle with it. They don't want it distracting them from their work. They don't want it choosing their productivity applications for them and penalizing the applications it doesn't think you should be using. We just want the darn thing to work - quietly - in the background - and leave us be.
Our government could take a lesson from the appliance and operating system markets.
This morning, I read an article talking about "what women want" in the context of government programs and government issues. What do women want from government? "Equal pay" for "equal work"? Free daycare programs? Free contraception? What do they want? One of my favorite webcomic authors, RH Junior, explains 'what women want' exceedingly well in a comic featuring a feminist character who is fed up with all of the expectations placed on her. "What you want ain't complicated. You want what everyone wants, male or female -- to be treated decent."
When I hear the question of what women want from government, the question I actually hear is, "What's your price?" It seems that liberal Democrats particularly are simply interested in more and bigger government, in bigger government regulation, in higher government taxation, in more control over our lives. That's why they bother to ask what "women" want from the government, rather than simply seeing us as people. What do blacks want from government? What do Hispanics want from government? What do parents want from government? What do the poor want from government? What do all of us have in common? We just want to be 'treated decent'.
In short, they aren't asking, "What do you want?" They are asking, "What can we give you to convince you to let us control your life?"
What we want is for the government to not have so much control over our lives that we could possibly need it to treat groups of people differently from each other. What we want is what we want from our operating system and our washing machine. We want a government that operates in the background and keeps an environment for us in which we can choose what we want in life and make our best try for it. We want a government that we don't have to deal with on a regular basis. We want a government that gets out of our way and does its job. We don't want pop-ups, we don't want "app suggestions", we don't want integrated crap that gets in the way of the programs we like to use... we just want it to be background, uncomplicated, and working properly.
Remember this as we launch headlong into this election year, and people start asking you what you want the government to give you in exchange for running your life for you.
I don't want my washing machine to tell me what it's doing! I use a washing machine so that I can freakin' dump in my load and press two buttons and walk away! It tells me when it's done, but since my laundry area is down in the basement, I usually don't even hear it. My washing machine is my servant. I want it to shut up and do its job so that I don't have to.
How about operating systems? I'm a definite computer geek (used to work as a software engineer, actually), so I know operating systems. One of the biggest mistakes that Microsoft made at one point was integrating Internet Explorer too deeply into Windows. It complicated the use of the machine and hurt people who wanted to choose a different web browser. Microsoft had to back off and understand what an operating system is for. Users don't want to have to think about their operating system. They don't want to have to fiddle with it. They don't want it distracting them from their work. They don't want it choosing their productivity applications for them and penalizing the applications it doesn't think you should be using. We just want the darn thing to work - quietly - in the background - and leave us be.
Our government could take a lesson from the appliance and operating system markets.
This morning, I read an article talking about "what women want" in the context of government programs and government issues. What do women want from government? "Equal pay" for "equal work"? Free daycare programs? Free contraception? What do they want? One of my favorite webcomic authors, RH Junior, explains 'what women want' exceedingly well in a comic featuring a feminist character who is fed up with all of the expectations placed on her. "What you want ain't complicated. You want what everyone wants, male or female -- to be treated decent."
When I hear the question of what women want from government, the question I actually hear is, "What's your price?" It seems that liberal Democrats particularly are simply interested in more and bigger government, in bigger government regulation, in higher government taxation, in more control over our lives. That's why they bother to ask what "women" want from the government, rather than simply seeing us as people. What do blacks want from government? What do Hispanics want from government? What do parents want from government? What do the poor want from government? What do all of us have in common? We just want to be 'treated decent'.
In short, they aren't asking, "What do you want?" They are asking, "What can we give you to convince you to let us control your life?"
What we want is for the government to not have so much control over our lives that we could possibly need it to treat groups of people differently from each other. What we want is what we want from our operating system and our washing machine. We want a government that operates in the background and keeps an environment for us in which we can choose what we want in life and make our best try for it. We want a government that we don't have to deal with on a regular basis. We want a government that gets out of our way and does its job. We don't want pop-ups, we don't want "app suggestions", we don't want integrated crap that gets in the way of the programs we like to use... we just want it to be background, uncomplicated, and working properly.
Remember this as we launch headlong into this election year, and people start asking you what you want the government to give you in exchange for running your life for you.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Who keeps your brother?
So the news is buzzing about Obama's dealings with this organization called "My Brother's Keeper", which has something to do with tutoring black teenagers. The phrase was used by Obama himself in a call for the government to interfere in our lives as much as possible 'for our own good'.
Of course, his use of this phrase and his support of this group is horribly funny for several reasons.
1. The very phrase "my brother's keeper", as Obama pointed out as a misguided attempt to justify his point, was spoken by Cain to God when God asked Cain where his brother Abel was. Of course, Cain had ample reason to know where Abel was, having just killed him in anger. However, all that aside, assuming as Cain did that God did not know about the murder, it could have been a valid question.
"Am I my brother's keeper?"
What he meant by it was this: My brother is a grown man, an adult. He doesn't need someone to hold his hand. He doesn't need me to always know where he is and what he's doing. He doesn't need someone else making all his decisions for him as if he was a child. My brother doesn't need a 'keeper'. In short, "my brother's keeper" was a sarcastic barb meant to make the point that adults don't need other people living their lives for them - the exact opposite of the way Obama used the phrase.
Shorter version: Obama took seriously a sarcastic phrase spoken by a liar and murderer.
2. Obama hasn't been his own brother's keeper. Barack Obama still has a half-brother in Kenya who still lives in a hut made of garbage because it's the best he's got. Despite the fact that the average monthly salary in Kenya is 1% of Obama's presidential salary, Obama can't seem to spare a single dollar for his own family. Of course, that's just his half-brother. He also has an aunt living on government welfare funds in Massachusetts, despite being an illegal immigrant.
Even if we play the sarcastic phrase straight, as Obama did, isn't it telling that he cares more about making other people help strangers than about helping his own family with his own money?
3. Obama doesn't treat black tutors very well when they don't fit into his political agenda. Now, my first two points may make it seem as if I object to people tutoring black teens. Far from it. I've done it myself (I am willing to tutor those in need and many of them have been black and teenaged), and I think it is a solidly good idea to do what we can, as a personal and Christian care for those in need rather than a government program or presidential guilt-trip, to alleviate some of the burdens caused by the rampant fatherlessness in the black communities.
However, one of the men well-known in his community for tutoring black teens in need as part of his many contributions to society was nearly killed by a criminal whom Obama identified as a metaphorical son. Protecting tutors of black teens seems to mean nothing to Obama when he can use an incident to inflame racial tensions and ensure that the only people able to safely tutor black teens are blacks who have not "gone white", "turned Oreo", or "become Uncle Toms" (I'll spare you the Uncle Tom pet peeve today), and therefore are likely even less qualified to aid these people than the people they are supposed to be aiding.
Then again, with Common Core coming into full swing especially in the big cities where underprivileged black teens tend to live, who will know how to tutor them anymore?
Of course, his use of this phrase and his support of this group is horribly funny for several reasons.
1. The very phrase "my brother's keeper", as Obama pointed out as a misguided attempt to justify his point, was spoken by Cain to God when God asked Cain where his brother Abel was. Of course, Cain had ample reason to know where Abel was, having just killed him in anger. However, all that aside, assuming as Cain did that God did not know about the murder, it could have been a valid question.
"Am I my brother's keeper?"
What he meant by it was this: My brother is a grown man, an adult. He doesn't need someone to hold his hand. He doesn't need me to always know where he is and what he's doing. He doesn't need someone else making all his decisions for him as if he was a child. My brother doesn't need a 'keeper'. In short, "my brother's keeper" was a sarcastic barb meant to make the point that adults don't need other people living their lives for them - the exact opposite of the way Obama used the phrase.
Shorter version: Obama took seriously a sarcastic phrase spoken by a liar and murderer.
2. Obama hasn't been his own brother's keeper. Barack Obama still has a half-brother in Kenya who still lives in a hut made of garbage because it's the best he's got. Despite the fact that the average monthly salary in Kenya is 1% of Obama's presidential salary, Obama can't seem to spare a single dollar for his own family. Of course, that's just his half-brother. He also has an aunt living on government welfare funds in Massachusetts, despite being an illegal immigrant.
Even if we play the sarcastic phrase straight, as Obama did, isn't it telling that he cares more about making other people help strangers than about helping his own family with his own money?
3. Obama doesn't treat black tutors very well when they don't fit into his political agenda. Now, my first two points may make it seem as if I object to people tutoring black teens. Far from it. I've done it myself (I am willing to tutor those in need and many of them have been black and teenaged), and I think it is a solidly good idea to do what we can, as a personal and Christian care for those in need rather than a government program or presidential guilt-trip, to alleviate some of the burdens caused by the rampant fatherlessness in the black communities.
However, one of the men well-known in his community for tutoring black teens in need as part of his many contributions to society was nearly killed by a criminal whom Obama identified as a metaphorical son. Protecting tutors of black teens seems to mean nothing to Obama when he can use an incident to inflame racial tensions and ensure that the only people able to safely tutor black teens are blacks who have not "gone white", "turned Oreo", or "become Uncle Toms" (I'll spare you the Uncle Tom pet peeve today), and therefore are likely even less qualified to aid these people than the people they are supposed to be aiding.
Then again, with Common Core coming into full swing especially in the big cities where underprivileged black teens tend to live, who will know how to tutor them anymore?
Monday, April 13, 2015
Religious Freedom leading to higher costs for nonbelievers?
My husband and I were discussing our health insurance situation this morning. We are on that very uncomfortable line in which we may possibly see only a very small increase in income, and it will be enough to make health insurance vastly more expensive under the ACA. I listed the alternatives I'd been considering. Chief among them was a Christian medi-share program, which has held costs down by refusing to cover 'vices' (birth control, abortion, sex-change surgery, etc.) and by not being subject to all the vagueries and bizarrities of the ACA which is driving up costs all over the country.
(Aren't costs coming down? Sort of. The cost of care is rising. The amount of money spent on care is falling. How does that work? A recent study shows that 25% of insured Americans are now putting off needed care because they cannot afford it!)
This is actually not my topic for the day.
As I explained our options, I suddenly realized something strange. "The situation is crazy," I told my husband as I put dishes into the dishwasher (yes, I leave supper dishes until the next morning), "but between our intelligence and our easily-proven adherence to our faith, we should be able to get by."
The original intent of the First Amendment statement on religion was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the free expression of religion. Among the first and most common practices defeated by application of the First Amendment were mandates and 'taxes' requiring everyone, whether a member or not, to contribute to the state-sanctioned church. In short, one of the biggest fears the Democrats plant in our minds regarding religion is that we may, if it is not suppressed, be forced to pay extra money to the government simply for the 'crime' of not adhering to the government-approved religion.
Curiously, a twisted version of this is now happening, and the Democrats are the ones responsible.
Now that the government has been reaching deeper and deeper into our personal lives, to the point where it not only can order us to purchase medical insurance, but also decide how much we should pay, what coverages we should receive, and how our doctors should be allowed to treat our ailments, it must satisfy the First Amendment by permitting religious organizations to take an exemption. This is especially true due to the Contraception Mandate, which I've spoken of before.
Now this is the fascinating result. Since people are increasingly being pidgeonholed into expensive, inefficient government programs and not being permitted by law to solve their problems through simpler measures that work well, only the religious folk are capable of living well with less income by taking advantage of the religious exemption. By all of my research, if we get bumped just barely into that higher ACA cost level, being Christians instead of atheists is going to save us at least an estimated $5,000 per year.
I know this isn't a very new thing. The Amish, for instance, are allowed to exempt themselves from Social Security taxes, and the Social Security program is certainly problematic. However, the ACA is now kicking this disparity into high gear.
From here, we have two alternatives. The Democrats would weaken these religious exemptions, damage the First Amendment if it could not be reworded into uselessness completely, ushering in a new era of religious persecution as people of faith are forced to openly celebrate and directly fund evil of various sorts. The Republicans would reduce government reach and control until an atheist could once again receive equal treatment from the government, and the lifestyles of people of faith would not have to conflict with theirs.
(Aren't costs coming down? Sort of. The cost of care is rising. The amount of money spent on care is falling. How does that work? A recent study shows that 25% of insured Americans are now putting off needed care because they cannot afford it!)
This is actually not my topic for the day.
As I explained our options, I suddenly realized something strange. "The situation is crazy," I told my husband as I put dishes into the dishwasher (yes, I leave supper dishes until the next morning), "but between our intelligence and our easily-proven adherence to our faith, we should be able to get by."
The original intent of the First Amendment statement on religion was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the free expression of religion. Among the first and most common practices defeated by application of the First Amendment were mandates and 'taxes' requiring everyone, whether a member or not, to contribute to the state-sanctioned church. In short, one of the biggest fears the Democrats plant in our minds regarding religion is that we may, if it is not suppressed, be forced to pay extra money to the government simply for the 'crime' of not adhering to the government-approved religion.
Curiously, a twisted version of this is now happening, and the Democrats are the ones responsible.
Now that the government has been reaching deeper and deeper into our personal lives, to the point where it not only can order us to purchase medical insurance, but also decide how much we should pay, what coverages we should receive, and how our doctors should be allowed to treat our ailments, it must satisfy the First Amendment by permitting religious organizations to take an exemption. This is especially true due to the Contraception Mandate, which I've spoken of before.
Now this is the fascinating result. Since people are increasingly being pidgeonholed into expensive, inefficient government programs and not being permitted by law to solve their problems through simpler measures that work well, only the religious folk are capable of living well with less income by taking advantage of the religious exemption. By all of my research, if we get bumped just barely into that higher ACA cost level, being Christians instead of atheists is going to save us at least an estimated $5,000 per year.
I know this isn't a very new thing. The Amish, for instance, are allowed to exempt themselves from Social Security taxes, and the Social Security program is certainly problematic. However, the ACA is now kicking this disparity into high gear.
From here, we have two alternatives. The Democrats would weaken these religious exemptions, damage the First Amendment if it could not be reworded into uselessness completely, ushering in a new era of religious persecution as people of faith are forced to openly celebrate and directly fund evil of various sorts. The Republicans would reduce government reach and control until an atheist could once again receive equal treatment from the government, and the lifestyles of people of faith would not have to conflict with theirs.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Back to the Fathers
The year is 2015. The pictures and quotes have been flying all over Facebook. In 1985, we were treated to the first part of one of the most excellent trilogies ever made... Back To The Future.
In the first movie, our protagonist starts out in 1985, a beautiful, perfect 1985 that now evokes nostalgia in everyone who was born before 1990. He gets dropped into 1955 in the first movie. In the second, he travels to 2015. In the third, he winds up in 1885. The year now is 2015, and we are finding that "the future" is sadly lacking in some areas, such as hoverboards and flying cars, but surprisingly similar in others, as the writers cleverly repeated trends as has always happened in the past and seems likely to continue into the future.
What I'd like to talk about, though, is the psychology and the sociology of the show. They hit upon one solid, repeatable truth, and gave us many excellent examples of it. A father's influence is vital within his entire family.
Note: If you have not seen the trilogy, stop now. Watch it through. Then read the rest of this post.
In the first movie, Marty McFly's father is not exactly an inspiring fellow. He is harried, submissive, and detached from other people. This deficit in his own behavior shows in his entire family. His wife drinks a little too much. (That point is subtle and takes some attention to detail.) His eldest struggles along as a night worker at a fast food restaurant, and his daughter is frumpy and consistently griping about her unpopularity. Marty himself is keeping himself from a potential career (or, at least, ten minutes of fame) as a musician by his crippling insecurity. During the course of the movie, George McFly learns how to be both assertive and connected, and his entire family benefits. His wife at the movie's end is healthier and happier, and their children are all progressing slowly towards successful lives of their own.
One instance, though, does not a trend make. In the second movie, Doc notes that Marty's family falls apart and traces the origin of the problem to his son's and daughter's arrest when his son gets browbeat into participating in criminal activity. As we see a night around the McFly table, however, we know that Doc is no expert in family sociology. (Did we expect him to be?) Marty is a manipulated blowhard. His wife married him for pity (not unlike his father's wife in the beginning of the first movie) and often goes out on long trips after work without letting him know where she has gone. His children have no respect for him. They are living in a neighborhood where the cops do not like to travel after dark. We do not see the end result when Marty changes his ways, but we clearly see how his wife and children's welfare depend heavily on his own behavior.
Families need their fathers.
In the same movie, we see that the antagonist Biff appears to have an absent mother and absent father. He is raised by his grandmother. We have no idea what happened to his parents. We do see his internal frustration with his grandmother and the way he takes it out on everyone else.
When Marty returns to 1985, or, rather, the problematic 1985A in which his father is dead and Biff has married his mother, we see the effects of Biff as a father once again spreading through the entire family. His mother is so beaten down that she justifies the abuse she suffers at his hands. Marty's older brother is on parole, and his sister can't seem to handle her money at all, as she has a dangerous amount of credit card debt. Marty himself apparently keeps getting thrown out of boarding schools. You almost can't blame Biff for griping about the "perfectly good money" he wastes on these "worthless kids".
Of course, the best movie isn't a hammer meant to drive a lesson deep into your head. The series has always been primarily about how you can improve your future by what you do today. In addition, the series is smart enough to not make a good father a guarantee of good children; Marty has his own problems even under the influence of his changed father, and one of the children of Lorraine's traditional 1950's father winds up in jail. Still, the message is clear, even if it is an unintentional result of a carefully-crafted series that pursues every thread to its most logical conclusion (flying cars aside)...
Families need their fathers. Of course, not everything relies wholly upon the father. However, he definitely has a profound effect on every member of his family.
We would do well to remember this.
In the first movie, our protagonist starts out in 1985, a beautiful, perfect 1985 that now evokes nostalgia in everyone who was born before 1990. He gets dropped into 1955 in the first movie. In the second, he travels to 2015. In the third, he winds up in 1885. The year now is 2015, and we are finding that "the future" is sadly lacking in some areas, such as hoverboards and flying cars, but surprisingly similar in others, as the writers cleverly repeated trends as has always happened in the past and seems likely to continue into the future.
What I'd like to talk about, though, is the psychology and the sociology of the show. They hit upon one solid, repeatable truth, and gave us many excellent examples of it. A father's influence is vital within his entire family.
Note: If you have not seen the trilogy, stop now. Watch it through. Then read the rest of this post.
In the first movie, Marty McFly's father is not exactly an inspiring fellow. He is harried, submissive, and detached from other people. This deficit in his own behavior shows in his entire family. His wife drinks a little too much. (That point is subtle and takes some attention to detail.) His eldest struggles along as a night worker at a fast food restaurant, and his daughter is frumpy and consistently griping about her unpopularity. Marty himself is keeping himself from a potential career (or, at least, ten minutes of fame) as a musician by his crippling insecurity. During the course of the movie, George McFly learns how to be both assertive and connected, and his entire family benefits. His wife at the movie's end is healthier and happier, and their children are all progressing slowly towards successful lives of their own.
One instance, though, does not a trend make. In the second movie, Doc notes that Marty's family falls apart and traces the origin of the problem to his son's and daughter's arrest when his son gets browbeat into participating in criminal activity. As we see a night around the McFly table, however, we know that Doc is no expert in family sociology. (Did we expect him to be?) Marty is a manipulated blowhard. His wife married him for pity (not unlike his father's wife in the beginning of the first movie) and often goes out on long trips after work without letting him know where she has gone. His children have no respect for him. They are living in a neighborhood where the cops do not like to travel after dark. We do not see the end result when Marty changes his ways, but we clearly see how his wife and children's welfare depend heavily on his own behavior.
Families need their fathers.
In the same movie, we see that the antagonist Biff appears to have an absent mother and absent father. He is raised by his grandmother. We have no idea what happened to his parents. We do see his internal frustration with his grandmother and the way he takes it out on everyone else.
When Marty returns to 1985, or, rather, the problematic 1985A in which his father is dead and Biff has married his mother, we see the effects of Biff as a father once again spreading through the entire family. His mother is so beaten down that she justifies the abuse she suffers at his hands. Marty's older brother is on parole, and his sister can't seem to handle her money at all, as she has a dangerous amount of credit card debt. Marty himself apparently keeps getting thrown out of boarding schools. You almost can't blame Biff for griping about the "perfectly good money" he wastes on these "worthless kids".
Of course, the best movie isn't a hammer meant to drive a lesson deep into your head. The series has always been primarily about how you can improve your future by what you do today. In addition, the series is smart enough to not make a good father a guarantee of good children; Marty has his own problems even under the influence of his changed father, and one of the children of Lorraine's traditional 1950's father winds up in jail. Still, the message is clear, even if it is an unintentional result of a carefully-crafted series that pursues every thread to its most logical conclusion (flying cars aside)...
Families need their fathers. Of course, not everything relies wholly upon the father. However, he definitely has a profound effect on every member of his family.
We would do well to remember this.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
A Primer for Handling Anxiety Attacks
As part of my unfortunate, perpetually-undiagnosed "female complaint", each month at PMS time I do what I call "reaching into the grab bag". The "grab bag" is a hypothetical place filled with the entire list of possible PMS symptoms, which can be found on just about any medical website. I "reach into the grab bag" and I pull out three symptoms more or less at random. Those are the ones I have to deal with for that given month. The symptoms are discarded within a day or two of actual onset of menstruation, and next month I reach in for another three, at random.
This month, I happen to have picked out "anxiety attacks".
Now this is not terribly new for me. I have been officially diagnosed with "Generalized Anxiety Disorder", which basically means that I may get anxiety attacks sometimes for no particular reason. Oh, we are sure that there is a reason. Perhaps there is a hormone drop, or surge, or a neurotransmitter glitch. The problem with finding an intermittent error in any system, as I'm finding with a really bizarre personal computer problem involving a disappearing hard drive, is that if you don't catch the problem in the middle of happening, the diagnostics all check out as normal. Suffice to say that I have identified a few triggers, but have no hopes of catching all of them.
So I have decided to take a moment and create a primer, for family, friends, and whoever might benefit from the information, on how to identify and treat an anxiety attack from the perspective of the sufferer's family member, friend, or whoever happens to be accompanying her when it happens. I am doubly encouraged by a scene the Disney movie Frozen. Anxiety sufferers cringe at the reprise to "For the First Time In Forever", in which Elsa very clearly displays every sign of a physical anxiety attack, and Anna does everything wrong in trying, with an open heart and honest desire to help, to make things better. I know you guys want to help your friend. I'm going to help you figure out how.
Step 1: Identifying an anxiety attack
Anxiety attacks often start with a surge of panic. At this point, I know the feeling well enough that I don't actually feel "afraid", so I could dispassionately describe it as an adrenaline surge. It's the same feeling you get when you are driving down a snowy road, you turn the wheel, and nothing happens. In fact, the entire anxiety attack pretty much follows your physical symptoms after you do something like that. The person may start trembling, sweating, or shivering, may rest her hand near her neck to feel her heart pounding, may blink rapidly, and her breathing will change. If she's a pro at dealing with the attacks, her breathing may become deeper, slower, and more deliberate. If she doesn't have a handle on it, her breathing may become shorter, faster, and shallower. If the attack is severe or she doesn't know how to identify or manage it, she might even start to cry.
There may be no obvious trigger, and anxiety often builds to an attack (secretly and in the background) rather than hitting the rapid onset that you would feel if you had just entered a genuinely dangerous situation. She may have been mall-walking for an hour and a half and suddenly get hit with a full-fledged attack while doing nothing in particular. Even when you have been having anxiety attacks for years and are pretty well used to them, the opening surge still blindsides you.
Step 2: Shift your focus
In the scene from Frozen, the first mistake Anna makes is to assume that Elsa is "afraid", and that figuring out what is frightening her and easing her fears will make her reaction go away. This is actually 100% wrong. Whether the trigger is emotional or physical, the anxiety attack response is utterly and fully physical, and "solving the problem" will do absolutely nothing for the symptoms. In fact, attempting to "solve the problem" will be useless on two fronts: you are repeatedly applying a potential (probably a likely) trigger for the attack, and she is not going to be able to deal with any underlying emotional state in a reasonable manner. If she had an attack of leg cramps, you wouldn't push her to keep jogging while telling her that she can 'get through this'. You'd let her stop until the cramps ease and help her work them out of her leg. You need to do the same thing here.
So the wrong thing to say is, "Are you scared?" or "What are you afraid of?" or "How are things going at home?" The right thing to say is, "Are you having an anxiety attack?"
Now that isn't to say that being a counselor is the wrong thing to do overall. There is obviously an underlying stressor causing the problem, and you might want to talk to her later on and find out if it's emotional. Never do it during the attack, or even in the immediate aftermath. You want to be in "nurse mode" with your friend right now, not "counselor/psychologist mode".
You may have noticed by now that I keep using the phrase "anxiety attack" instead of "panic attack". I almost wish I could invent another word for it. When I have an attack, I am not "panicking". In fact, I'm probably completely calm to all outward appearances. I am having a physical reaction, like cramps or hives. (I am not entirely typical. Usually the person having an anxiety attack will have an emotional reaction as well. In that case... it is still merely a physical, chemical reaction and ought to be treated as one.)
Step 3: Managing an attack
Now that you know that you're dealing with a physical/medical event, you will find it much easier to learn how to treat the attack. The first and best thing to do, especially with someone who has a history of anxiety attacks, is to ask, "What can I do?" and "What do you need?" Then listen. That seems obvious, but in that Frozen scene, it is one thing that Anna does not do. Her sister puts out very clear "back away" signals and even states clearly that she is making it worse, but she just keeps persisting, certain that the Power of Friendship will solve the issue. Some people may feel better if you hold hands, or give a hug, but some will not, and it is neither your fault nor a rejection of you as a friend.
Because I am sensitive in a number of ways I don't understand, I perceive people as if they have 'zones of influence' or 'zones of personality' (commonly called 'auras', mostly in spiritual circles to which I do not belong) extending for a short distance around them. When I am dealing with an anxiety attack, I am managing my own 'aura', doing a balancing act. I do not need your 'aura' getting into my zone and throwing off all my readings. Now that's my personal experience. Frequent sufferers generally already know what works and can tell you what you can do, or just communicate whether they need closeness or space. If you are going to hug or hold hands, for heaven's sake keep yourself calm, because they might be feeding off your mood in hopes of stabilizing theirs.
There are several medical/physical steps that can shorten an anxiety attack. Forcing yourself to breathe deeply and slowly will slow the heartbeat and help kick the body off of its adrenaline surge. Massaging the vagus nerves (roughly where the jawbone meets the ear and just behind it) will also help. You could give your friend a drink and encourage her to sip it slowly once the initial surge starts to recede. Do not give her anything with caffeine in it. She should probably avoid caffeine completely for the rest of the day. Visualization also helps, but it has to be a place that she finds relaxing, not a place that you find relaxing. Though the two may coincide, don't depend on it!
If your friend has a chronic problem, she may have been prescribed medication. Alprazolam (Xanax) is a fairly common "take-as-needed" medication for anxiety attacks. Check the bottle and do her a favor - offer to drive home. Most anti-anxiety medications cause mild or marked drowsiness.
Anxiety attacks typically peak within the first ten minutes and take about a half hour to really resolve. Serious problems like allergic reactions and cardiac difficulties (she might mistake an anxiety attack for either of these, and might even be convincing to bystanders and helpful medical staff) will continue or get worse.
Step 4: Aftermath
Anxiety attacks are like earthquakes. They tire people out, and the larger ones commonly have 'aftershocks'. Your friend might need to cut your trip/visit short, eliminate an event from her schedule, or simply needs to go right home as soon as the symptoms subside. If she decides to power through the rest of the day (whether she powers through or goes home, she is just as frustrated with cutting it short as you are), just keep an eye out and be aware that the attack will have sapped her energy and lowered her ability to cope with stress triggers. If you leave the mall to find that your planned dinner spot is crammed full of noise and bright light, feel free to suggest a different spot!
Basically, just be aware that it is possible to have multiple anxiety attacks in a day, and each one weakens her resistance to the next. If the attack was severe, she might need a couple of days to fully recover.
When the physical effects of the attack have faded away, it may be a good time to encourage your friend to check on her stressors and triggers. Now is the time to find out if she has been facing a bad situation at work, or whether she is just at a bad point in her hormonal cycle. Dealing with the triggers ahead of time will prevent or at least lessen future attacks.
Be patient... anxiety disorders often require lifelong management, like diabetes or Crohn's, and it may be decades in the future (or longer!) before we can even identify the underlying problem, never mind finding a full-out cure. A person with an anxiety disorder can still lead a perfectly fine, happy, fun, fulfilling life, as long as her family and friends can patiently deal with the attacks and move on to the good stuff.
This month, I happen to have picked out "anxiety attacks".
Now this is not terribly new for me. I have been officially diagnosed with "Generalized Anxiety Disorder", which basically means that I may get anxiety attacks sometimes for no particular reason. Oh, we are sure that there is a reason. Perhaps there is a hormone drop, or surge, or a neurotransmitter glitch. The problem with finding an intermittent error in any system, as I'm finding with a really bizarre personal computer problem involving a disappearing hard drive, is that if you don't catch the problem in the middle of happening, the diagnostics all check out as normal. Suffice to say that I have identified a few triggers, but have no hopes of catching all of them.
So I have decided to take a moment and create a primer, for family, friends, and whoever might benefit from the information, on how to identify and treat an anxiety attack from the perspective of the sufferer's family member, friend, or whoever happens to be accompanying her when it happens. I am doubly encouraged by a scene the Disney movie Frozen. Anxiety sufferers cringe at the reprise to "For the First Time In Forever", in which Elsa very clearly displays every sign of a physical anxiety attack, and Anna does everything wrong in trying, with an open heart and honest desire to help, to make things better. I know you guys want to help your friend. I'm going to help you figure out how.
Step 1: Identifying an anxiety attack
Anxiety attacks often start with a surge of panic. At this point, I know the feeling well enough that I don't actually feel "afraid", so I could dispassionately describe it as an adrenaline surge. It's the same feeling you get when you are driving down a snowy road, you turn the wheel, and nothing happens. In fact, the entire anxiety attack pretty much follows your physical symptoms after you do something like that. The person may start trembling, sweating, or shivering, may rest her hand near her neck to feel her heart pounding, may blink rapidly, and her breathing will change. If she's a pro at dealing with the attacks, her breathing may become deeper, slower, and more deliberate. If she doesn't have a handle on it, her breathing may become shorter, faster, and shallower. If the attack is severe or she doesn't know how to identify or manage it, she might even start to cry.
There may be no obvious trigger, and anxiety often builds to an attack (secretly and in the background) rather than hitting the rapid onset that you would feel if you had just entered a genuinely dangerous situation. She may have been mall-walking for an hour and a half and suddenly get hit with a full-fledged attack while doing nothing in particular. Even when you have been having anxiety attacks for years and are pretty well used to them, the opening surge still blindsides you.
Step 2: Shift your focus
In the scene from Frozen, the first mistake Anna makes is to assume that Elsa is "afraid", and that figuring out what is frightening her and easing her fears will make her reaction go away. This is actually 100% wrong. Whether the trigger is emotional or physical, the anxiety attack response is utterly and fully physical, and "solving the problem" will do absolutely nothing for the symptoms. In fact, attempting to "solve the problem" will be useless on two fronts: you are repeatedly applying a potential (probably a likely) trigger for the attack, and she is not going to be able to deal with any underlying emotional state in a reasonable manner. If she had an attack of leg cramps, you wouldn't push her to keep jogging while telling her that she can 'get through this'. You'd let her stop until the cramps ease and help her work them out of her leg. You need to do the same thing here.
So the wrong thing to say is, "Are you scared?" or "What are you afraid of?" or "How are things going at home?" The right thing to say is, "Are you having an anxiety attack?"
Now that isn't to say that being a counselor is the wrong thing to do overall. There is obviously an underlying stressor causing the problem, and you might want to talk to her later on and find out if it's emotional. Never do it during the attack, or even in the immediate aftermath. You want to be in "nurse mode" with your friend right now, not "counselor/psychologist mode".
You may have noticed by now that I keep using the phrase "anxiety attack" instead of "panic attack". I almost wish I could invent another word for it. When I have an attack, I am not "panicking". In fact, I'm probably completely calm to all outward appearances. I am having a physical reaction, like cramps or hives. (I am not entirely typical. Usually the person having an anxiety attack will have an emotional reaction as well. In that case... it is still merely a physical, chemical reaction and ought to be treated as one.)
Step 3: Managing an attack
Now that you know that you're dealing with a physical/medical event, you will find it much easier to learn how to treat the attack. The first and best thing to do, especially with someone who has a history of anxiety attacks, is to ask, "What can I do?" and "What do you need?" Then listen. That seems obvious, but in that Frozen scene, it is one thing that Anna does not do. Her sister puts out very clear "back away" signals and even states clearly that she is making it worse, but she just keeps persisting, certain that the Power of Friendship will solve the issue. Some people may feel better if you hold hands, or give a hug, but some will not, and it is neither your fault nor a rejection of you as a friend.
Because I am sensitive in a number of ways I don't understand, I perceive people as if they have 'zones of influence' or 'zones of personality' (commonly called 'auras', mostly in spiritual circles to which I do not belong) extending for a short distance around them. When I am dealing with an anxiety attack, I am managing my own 'aura', doing a balancing act. I do not need your 'aura' getting into my zone and throwing off all my readings. Now that's my personal experience. Frequent sufferers generally already know what works and can tell you what you can do, or just communicate whether they need closeness or space. If you are going to hug or hold hands, for heaven's sake keep yourself calm, because they might be feeding off your mood in hopes of stabilizing theirs.
There are several medical/physical steps that can shorten an anxiety attack. Forcing yourself to breathe deeply and slowly will slow the heartbeat and help kick the body off of its adrenaline surge. Massaging the vagus nerves (roughly where the jawbone meets the ear and just behind it) will also help. You could give your friend a drink and encourage her to sip it slowly once the initial surge starts to recede. Do not give her anything with caffeine in it. She should probably avoid caffeine completely for the rest of the day. Visualization also helps, but it has to be a place that she finds relaxing, not a place that you find relaxing. Though the two may coincide, don't depend on it!
If your friend has a chronic problem, she may have been prescribed medication. Alprazolam (Xanax) is a fairly common "take-as-needed" medication for anxiety attacks. Check the bottle and do her a favor - offer to drive home. Most anti-anxiety medications cause mild or marked drowsiness.
Anxiety attacks typically peak within the first ten minutes and take about a half hour to really resolve. Serious problems like allergic reactions and cardiac difficulties (she might mistake an anxiety attack for either of these, and might even be convincing to bystanders and helpful medical staff) will continue or get worse.
Step 4: Aftermath
Anxiety attacks are like earthquakes. They tire people out, and the larger ones commonly have 'aftershocks'. Your friend might need to cut your trip/visit short, eliminate an event from her schedule, or simply needs to go right home as soon as the symptoms subside. If she decides to power through the rest of the day (whether she powers through or goes home, she is just as frustrated with cutting it short as you are), just keep an eye out and be aware that the attack will have sapped her energy and lowered her ability to cope with stress triggers. If you leave the mall to find that your planned dinner spot is crammed full of noise and bright light, feel free to suggest a different spot!
Basically, just be aware that it is possible to have multiple anxiety attacks in a day, and each one weakens her resistance to the next. If the attack was severe, she might need a couple of days to fully recover.
When the physical effects of the attack have faded away, it may be a good time to encourage your friend to check on her stressors and triggers. Now is the time to find out if she has been facing a bad situation at work, or whether she is just at a bad point in her hormonal cycle. Dealing with the triggers ahead of time will prevent or at least lessen future attacks.
Be patient... anxiety disorders often require lifelong management, like diabetes or Crohn's, and it may be decades in the future (or longer!) before we can even identify the underlying problem, never mind finding a full-out cure. A person with an anxiety disorder can still lead a perfectly fine, happy, fun, fulfilling life, as long as her family and friends can patiently deal with the attacks and move on to the good stuff.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
It's 'okay' to be X-Men
"Have you tried not being a mutant?"
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)