In a recent discussion about old traditions, this one came up. It came up specifically to have a crack at me because I’d dared to say that someone recently deceased “could be a twat at times”. I’m sure, if you didn’t already see it, you can imagine the shock and disgust this has raised - but has left me rather baffled on many levels. And not just because of the primary school tale-telling shit-stir way it was raised and treated.
You see, I never heard this expression until my late teens. Both my grandmothers were absolute bounties of superstitions and folk traditions, but I first heard this from a friend’s mother and my response at the time was “why on earth not?”
I have never been able to stomach those people who can’t stand someone when they’re alive but turn them into a saint on their passing. I’ve ended a friendship with a young lady who barely tolerated her partner, they fought (sometimes with physical violence) and she frequently ran him down - all while he was alive. After his suicide, even up to a year afterwards (which was roughly when I broke contact), it was true love and she just couldn’t possibly carry on living without him.
The people since that I’ve heard it from usually say it as they say something unkind about someone who has passed. “Shouldn’t speak ill of the dead but…” Is that better somehow? I’ve understood it to be similar to those who say “I don’t want to complain but…” I’m reminded of a line from Game of Thrones: “Anything that anyone says before the word ‘but’ is to be ignored.”
I’ve always treated the dead the same as I treat the living. This isn’t news. This is the best way to deal with ghosts and spirits. Any half-decent psychic will tell you that. Why should this suddenly change?
I also struggled with how describing someone’s behaviour counts as Speaking Ill of Them. I didn’t say anything that was untrue from my perspective, I didn’t even say anything remotely nasty. It was described as “extremely disparaging” and “an epithet”. I still maintain that was for dramatic effect from the people running around, telling on me and trying to create drama.
In my bafflement, I went to several people I knew who have a good solid grounding and knowledge of the same folk traditions as the people expressing their shock and horror at my statement. I spoke to them about this ‘tradition’, I asked questions and explained what had happened and my confusion.
In all cases, I was told that you continue to speak to them as you did in life. That you speak to and of them as if they were right next to you. Which is exactly what I did.
So all of this has left me even more baffled. I followed folk tradition to the letter - albeit unknowingly - because this is what I believe in. Do those who claim to follow folk tradition have less of a grasp of it? Or has it changed with more politically correct times?
The chap in question is more than welcome to come and speak to me about it. I have no issues regarding communicating with the deceased, but he hasn’t so far and I’m sure he’s aware of it.
Blessings
Debbie
Monday, 10 February 2014
Monday, 3 February 2014
Cauldrons 2014 PaganFest
Another PaganFest has come and gone and a good time was had by all.
Our few minor venue issues were sorted, Luana made it after all (with a little help) and everything went smoothly.
Big thanks to everyone who came along - especially our rather large North Island contingent.
Big thanks to Houngan Liam, Houngan Alistair and all the rest of the crew from Kiwi Mojo. We really appreciated the time, effort and money you put into just getting there. The ritual was phenomenal and it was nice to genuinely meet the Lwa who put in an appearance - as well as being something I will never forget.
Big thanks to Gavin the Druid for the lovely opening ceremony and Sunday night ritual. And for being part of our 'tribe', all the way down here, a long way from where he actually lives.
Many big thanks to Dobby, and Mr Dobby and little Miss Dobby. Just for being them.
It was our first drama free PaganFest. No big egos stomping on others and no drama queens causing situations. It was quite refreshing and something that I'm hoping will continue in future events.
That said, it is already getting back to me that there were issues. I haven't found the source of these rumours and trouble-making yet, but let me assure you, they're simply the products of someone's imagination and need for drama.
Here's to another one next year!
Blessings
Debbie
PS. Normally, when we ask for donations for a charity, there are small bits and bobs. The donations that came in for the animals have left us humbled. Big bags of expensive cat and dog biscuits. Large boxes of kitten food. Even from those who were day visitors. A huge thank you to all who contributed.
Our few minor venue issues were sorted, Luana made it after all (with a little help) and everything went smoothly.
Big thanks to everyone who came along - especially our rather large North Island contingent.
Big thanks to Houngan Liam, Houngan Alistair and all the rest of the crew from Kiwi Mojo. We really appreciated the time, effort and money you put into just getting there. The ritual was phenomenal and it was nice to genuinely meet the Lwa who put in an appearance - as well as being something I will never forget.
Big thanks to Gavin the Druid for the lovely opening ceremony and Sunday night ritual. And for being part of our 'tribe', all the way down here, a long way from where he actually lives.
Many big thanks to Dobby, and Mr Dobby and little Miss Dobby. Just for being them.
It was our first drama free PaganFest. No big egos stomping on others and no drama queens causing situations. It was quite refreshing and something that I'm hoping will continue in future events.
That said, it is already getting back to me that there were issues. I haven't found the source of these rumours and trouble-making yet, but let me assure you, they're simply the products of someone's imagination and need for drama.
Here's to another one next year!
Blessings
Debbie
PS. Normally, when we ask for donations for a charity, there are small bits and bobs. The donations that came in for the animals have left us humbled. Big bags of expensive cat and dog biscuits. Large boxes of kitten food. Even from those who were day visitors. A huge thank you to all who contributed.
Friday, 31 January 2014
Book Studies in Beginners' Groups
I was invited to join a Beginners’ Group on Facebook. I did so, partly out of curiosity. It (so far) seems like a sensible group, it’s not filled with pointless memes and the love, light and unicorn farts that so many manage to nauseate me with (not to mention give actual beginners the totally wrong idea).
A book study was raised, with a request for suggestions about which book should be studied. I said I was being cheeky, but could I suggest mine? It was passed over for Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. The main reason, it was a book that most of us (who weren’t beginners) already owned.
Now, let me make this clear right from the start, I’m not in the least bit offended, I understand the reason for this and this book is one of the most recommended books for beginners.
BUT.
It very quickly became clear, reading through the discussions, that most people had issues with the material. Some of it quite historical and things that had been building up to rant level just waiting for an outlet for several years.
You see, while I was being cheeky and surreptitiously trying to promote my book (apparently something I don’t do nearly enough of) I also believe that this kind of book study would work best if everyone is somewhat unfamiliar with the material presented. Make it a level playing field if you like.
When there is a book like Cunningham’s, every one has heard someone else rave over the bits they like, rant about the bits they hate, or just comment that it’s a bit lacking. The popular opinions as to the worthiness or lack thereof are so well known that I find myself wondering if all of the people commenting are actually commenting on what they found worthy, lacking or thought-provoking or if they’re mindlessly regurgitating other people’s thoughts.
Most people seem to be so worried about the good opinions of random strangers over the internet that they won’t speak out against the flow of ‘popular’ opinion. Want to test that theory? Try saying that you’ve found any value in something (anything - even her fiction) written by Silver RavenWolf!
I haven’t bothered to participate in this book study, partly because I had too many other commitments - PaganFest took up most of my time when this book study was beginning - and because I’ve reviewed this book elsewhere already. I also feel this book has been done to death.
Now if someone wanted to do a book study on my book, something new and unfamiliar to most people, I’d be rapt. I’d also be glad to be invited to answer or discuss any criticisms, I promise I won’t get stroppy, the main message of my book is to think for yourself not to become a mindless follower of my philosophies.
Blessings
Debbie
A book study was raised, with a request for suggestions about which book should be studied. I said I was being cheeky, but could I suggest mine? It was passed over for Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. The main reason, it was a book that most of us (who weren’t beginners) already owned.
Now, let me make this clear right from the start, I’m not in the least bit offended, I understand the reason for this and this book is one of the most recommended books for beginners.
BUT.
It very quickly became clear, reading through the discussions, that most people had issues with the material. Some of it quite historical and things that had been building up to rant level just waiting for an outlet for several years.
You see, while I was being cheeky and surreptitiously trying to promote my book (apparently something I don’t do nearly enough of) I also believe that this kind of book study would work best if everyone is somewhat unfamiliar with the material presented. Make it a level playing field if you like.
When there is a book like Cunningham’s, every one has heard someone else rave over the bits they like, rant about the bits they hate, or just comment that it’s a bit lacking. The popular opinions as to the worthiness or lack thereof are so well known that I find myself wondering if all of the people commenting are actually commenting on what they found worthy, lacking or thought-provoking or if they’re mindlessly regurgitating other people’s thoughts.
Most people seem to be so worried about the good opinions of random strangers over the internet that they won’t speak out against the flow of ‘popular’ opinion. Want to test that theory? Try saying that you’ve found any value in something (anything - even her fiction) written by Silver RavenWolf!
I haven’t bothered to participate in this book study, partly because I had too many other commitments - PaganFest took up most of my time when this book study was beginning - and because I’ve reviewed this book elsewhere already. I also feel this book has been done to death.
Now if someone wanted to do a book study on my book, something new and unfamiliar to most people, I’d be rapt. I’d also be glad to be invited to answer or discuss any criticisms, I promise I won’t get stroppy, the main message of my book is to think for yourself not to become a mindless follower of my philosophies.
Blessings
Debbie
Monday, 27 January 2014
Misused Words
There have been a number of pictures and memes doing the rounds lately that point out commonly misused words or phrases in the English language.
So far, I'd have to say this is my personal favourite:
And sometimes it's just that maybe you didn't pay enough attention in school.
With kids, we're constantly correcting them on their words and while they may get frustrated, we usually manage to stop them saying things like "catched the ball" or "buyed it from the shops". Our teens we work on the over used words that lose all meaning - "Like, actually, I mean, you know?"
Sometimes with adults it can be a little harder. But generally, intelligent adults will look it up, feel embarrassed and make a point of not misusing that word in future. "To be pacific, if it's any constellation to you..."
Why is it so different in spiritual circles?
There are a number of Hindi words that are commonly misused and I know there is no way to change it - that horse has well and truly bolted. But when I have found myself educated on what the word (and underlying concept) really means, I have made a point of not misusing that word (or concept) any further. Isn't that the right thing to do? I don't see the sense in continuing to use it to mean something different "Just because everyone understands what I mean."
Karma. Most commonly used to mean do bad things and bad things will happen to you. Sometimes used to mean much the same thing but do bad things in this life and your next life will be crappy. It turns out that both are somewhat incorrect.
A chap in several groups I frequent was raised Hindi, this is a bugbear of his. He tirelessly explains (over and over) that it's not that at all. Karma is tied to Samsara which is a purely Hindi concept. If you're not Hindu, you don't have Samsara and therefore no Karma. To break it down even further, it may be your Karma to be a shit in this life, there are lessons for your soul to learn by being a shit. You might think (as many do) that by not being a shit and doing good things you are earning good karma but this is not the case. You'd be going against your karma and therefore it would in fact be bad karma.
I really wish I'd saved one of his patient and polite rants to share it verbatim here.
Devas is another misunderstood term. Deva means 'deity' - the feminine is Devi which means Goddess. (And a source of amusement for me when my Indian friends couldn't pronounce the 'b' in Debbie and ended up calling me Devi). This is the root from which Divine, Deity and similar meaning words in many European languages has come from.
In the Vedas and the Upanishads, there are 33 Devas mentioned. Some are personifications (or deified personifications) of forces of nature and some are (deified) personifications of moral values. The Vasus are the forces of nature - they are or represent; Earth, Hot Fire, Wind, Space, Eternal, Moon, Sky and Stars.
Somehow in modern usage, deva has come to mean the spirits of the land and plants around you. I've read of this in books and heard it said (although not that commonly).
Again though, when the error is pointed out the response is "it's a widely used term known to mean this".
At what point does this sort of thing become okay? If you know a word is incorrect, why would you continue to use it? Am I a prat for pointing it out or are you the prat for knowingly misusing a word?
Blessings
Debbie
So far, I'd have to say this is my personal favourite:
Now, at some stage or another, I'm sure most of us have been guilty of using some words wrongly. Sometimes it could simply be a case of you've never seen it written down and are going completely by ear.
Sometimes with adults it can be a little harder. But generally, intelligent adults will look it up, feel embarrassed and make a point of not misusing that word in future. "To be pacific, if it's any constellation to you..."
Why is it so different in spiritual circles?
There are a number of Hindi words that are commonly misused and I know there is no way to change it - that horse has well and truly bolted. But when I have found myself educated on what the word (and underlying concept) really means, I have made a point of not misusing that word (or concept) any further. Isn't that the right thing to do? I don't see the sense in continuing to use it to mean something different "Just because everyone understands what I mean."
Karma. Most commonly used to mean do bad things and bad things will happen to you. Sometimes used to mean much the same thing but do bad things in this life and your next life will be crappy. It turns out that both are somewhat incorrect.
A chap in several groups I frequent was raised Hindi, this is a bugbear of his. He tirelessly explains (over and over) that it's not that at all. Karma is tied to Samsara which is a purely Hindi concept. If you're not Hindu, you don't have Samsara and therefore no Karma. To break it down even further, it may be your Karma to be a shit in this life, there are lessons for your soul to learn by being a shit. You might think (as many do) that by not being a shit and doing good things you are earning good karma but this is not the case. You'd be going against your karma and therefore it would in fact be bad karma.
I really wish I'd saved one of his patient and polite rants to share it verbatim here.
Devas is another misunderstood term. Deva means 'deity' - the feminine is Devi which means Goddess. (And a source of amusement for me when my Indian friends couldn't pronounce the 'b' in Debbie and ended up calling me Devi). This is the root from which Divine, Deity and similar meaning words in many European languages has come from.
In the Vedas and the Upanishads, there are 33 Devas mentioned. Some are personifications (or deified personifications) of forces of nature and some are (deified) personifications of moral values. The Vasus are the forces of nature - they are or represent; Earth, Hot Fire, Wind, Space, Eternal, Moon, Sky and Stars.
Somehow in modern usage, deva has come to mean the spirits of the land and plants around you. I've read of this in books and heard it said (although not that commonly).
Again though, when the error is pointed out the response is "it's a widely used term known to mean this".
At what point does this sort of thing become okay? If you know a word is incorrect, why would you continue to use it? Am I a prat for pointing it out or are you the prat for knowingly misusing a word?
Blessings
Debbie
Thursday, 12 December 2013
Announcing The Common Sense Spell Book
My book has been published and is available from a number of places. Shortly, it will be available from Cauldrons - when I get in the copies I had to buy that is - and I will even autograph them if that's what people want :)
It's been an interesting process. Actually writing the book didn't take very long. I was inspired and it all flowed from there. Then I spent several months re-reading, editing, adding snark and removing it again, adding fluff and removing it again, getting excited, getting arrogant, getting depressed and doing my own head in.
Then I sent it to Luana for proof-reading. It took a while. I know she was busy and was doing it as a favour but that just about drove me crazy. I would frequently be thinking that it must have been such total rubbish that she was having to totally rewrite it and was maybe procrastinating because it was so awful or she was dreading telling me how bad it was. Yes, I am my own worst enemy.
The edits really weren't that bad. There was some rearranging to do and that was fine, I hadn't really given a lot of thought to the structure. Some of it was Luana still getting my message across but in a far less brutal way than I'd said it. Let's face it, I'm generally pretty blunt when I write. There were also a few things that I'd worded quite vaguely and badly and they needed to be clearer.
But now it's out there and I'm equal parts excited and terrified. I haven't yet had my first review (although part of the marketing package I've paid for includes several reviews from critics of my choice). I now have my author's copy and it's strange seeing it all together in actual print. I'm excited because it's out there. I'm terrified because it's out there and part of me just wants everyone to love it. I know that's unrealistic. I know that I'll ruffle more than a few feathers with my treatment of ethics and witchcraft and that's one of the reasons I thought this book was needed.
It's available from Amazon and Book Depository and the Xlibris website. I've found it on a few others too, but for me the other most note worthy was on Scribd where it has a preview and is the only place I've found it available as an ebook so far.
I'm open to any reviews. If it's terrible, tell me and tell me why. If you like some of it but hate other parts, tell me and tell me why you didn't like those bits. If you love it, tell me that too.
Blessings
Debbie
It's been an interesting process. Actually writing the book didn't take very long. I was inspired and it all flowed from there. Then I spent several months re-reading, editing, adding snark and removing it again, adding fluff and removing it again, getting excited, getting arrogant, getting depressed and doing my own head in.
Then I sent it to Luana for proof-reading. It took a while. I know she was busy and was doing it as a favour but that just about drove me crazy. I would frequently be thinking that it must have been such total rubbish that she was having to totally rewrite it and was maybe procrastinating because it was so awful or she was dreading telling me how bad it was. Yes, I am my own worst enemy.
The edits really weren't that bad. There was some rearranging to do and that was fine, I hadn't really given a lot of thought to the structure. Some of it was Luana still getting my message across but in a far less brutal way than I'd said it. Let's face it, I'm generally pretty blunt when I write. There were also a few things that I'd worded quite vaguely and badly and they needed to be clearer.
But now it's out there and I'm equal parts excited and terrified. I haven't yet had my first review (although part of the marketing package I've paid for includes several reviews from critics of my choice). I now have my author's copy and it's strange seeing it all together in actual print. I'm excited because it's out there. I'm terrified because it's out there and part of me just wants everyone to love it. I know that's unrealistic. I know that I'll ruffle more than a few feathers with my treatment of ethics and witchcraft and that's one of the reasons I thought this book was needed.
It's available from Amazon and Book Depository and the Xlibris website. I've found it on a few others too, but for me the other most note worthy was on Scribd where it has a preview and is the only place I've found it available as an ebook so far.
I'm open to any reviews. If it's terrible, tell me and tell me why. If you like some of it but hate other parts, tell me and tell me why you didn't like those bits. If you love it, tell me that too.
Blessings
Debbie
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Hallowe'en Time Again
*Sigh*
It's Hallowe'en again, with all it's related dramas. We have Southern Hemisphere Pagans saying it's not Hallowe'en because it's Beltaine.
Well, no, that's not actually true. Hallowe'en is a Catholic/Christian vigil for the night before All Saints Day. It's Hallowe'en on October 31st regardless of where in the world you are, it's just not Samhain for us on that date.
Then there are the Pagans who find traditional, historically correct depictions of witches offensive and use Hallowe'en as their soapbox to bleat about it. Let's get real for a moment. Before the 1950s, when Gardner redefined it, witchcraft meant malicious folk magic. The cunning folk of the past thousand years that we're trying to reconstruct or emulate would have been horrified at being referred to as "witches". Many of the spells I've been reading in old books are protection against witchcraft. Please note - not protection against bad witchcraft, or against evil witchcraft or against black, malicious, malevolent or anything else witchcraft - just protection against witchcraft.
Just because one group have chosen to use a word does not automatically give them the right to redefine it for everyone else or for the rest of history. It is not religious discrimination or bigotry to depict or define witches as evil, ugly old hags - it's the correct traditional meaning.
Then there is this kind of rubbish - while yes, most of the principles are sound, I'm still struggling with the whole dictating what treats are suitable to give to random children coming to your door. But I also have issues with this asshattery again while agreeing in principle.
To be honest, I struggle with the whole Trick or Treat thing at Hallowe'en anyway. Maybe it's because here in New Zealand it's only just starting to be done. In my 40 years I've seen two trick or treaters come to my door - ever.
My issues are that we spend the entire year teaching our children not to take sweets from strangers, but on that one night, we're supposed to totally contradict ourselves and send them out to demand it?
And then if you don't like what you get for your demands it's okay to commit acts of vandalism?
I find this a bit of an issue. Maybe it's because I'm the mother of a child on the autism spectrum - I can't have "sometimes" rules. The rule is either this or it's that. If there is one loophole then the rule is invalid. I don't think this kind of consistency is a bad thing for any parent - regardless of whether or not your child is autistic in any way.
I've read the Celtic history and some that were worse than that too. I know the practical history. This was the last night of hijinks before Winter had you closed up indoors. If all of your food for the coming winter wasn't prepared and stored properly (or if you hadn't saved enough) there was a high chance you'd die before spring.
Given that these are no longer issues in our society, is it still a relevant thing to celebrate?
Given that I've been hearing stories about poisoned or drugged "treats" being handed out by sickos for the last 20 years, is it a safe thing to celebrate? Even with parental supervision.
Given that we're constantly complaining about the sense of entitlement youth seem to have, that kids today have no manners or respect for anything, why would we encourage it even once a year?
Either way
Happy Hallowe'en :p
It's Hallowe'en again, with all it's related dramas. We have Southern Hemisphere Pagans saying it's not Hallowe'en because it's Beltaine.
Well, no, that's not actually true. Hallowe'en is a Catholic/Christian vigil for the night before All Saints Day. It's Hallowe'en on October 31st regardless of where in the world you are, it's just not Samhain for us on that date.
Then there are the Pagans who find traditional, historically correct depictions of witches offensive and use Hallowe'en as their soapbox to bleat about it. Let's get real for a moment. Before the 1950s, when Gardner redefined it, witchcraft meant malicious folk magic. The cunning folk of the past thousand years that we're trying to reconstruct or emulate would have been horrified at being referred to as "witches". Many of the spells I've been reading in old books are protection against witchcraft. Please note - not protection against bad witchcraft, or against evil witchcraft or against black, malicious, malevolent or anything else witchcraft - just protection against witchcraft.
Just because one group have chosen to use a word does not automatically give them the right to redefine it for everyone else or for the rest of history. It is not religious discrimination or bigotry to depict or define witches as evil, ugly old hags - it's the correct traditional meaning.
Then there is this kind of rubbish - while yes, most of the principles are sound, I'm still struggling with the whole dictating what treats are suitable to give to random children coming to your door. But I also have issues with this asshattery again while agreeing in principle.
To be honest, I struggle with the whole Trick or Treat thing at Hallowe'en anyway. Maybe it's because here in New Zealand it's only just starting to be done. In my 40 years I've seen two trick or treaters come to my door - ever.
My issues are that we spend the entire year teaching our children not to take sweets from strangers, but on that one night, we're supposed to totally contradict ourselves and send them out to demand it?
And then if you don't like what you get for your demands it's okay to commit acts of vandalism?
I find this a bit of an issue. Maybe it's because I'm the mother of a child on the autism spectrum - I can't have "sometimes" rules. The rule is either this or it's that. If there is one loophole then the rule is invalid. I don't think this kind of consistency is a bad thing for any parent - regardless of whether or not your child is autistic in any way.
I've read the Celtic history and some that were worse than that too. I know the practical history. This was the last night of hijinks before Winter had you closed up indoors. If all of your food for the coming winter wasn't prepared and stored properly (or if you hadn't saved enough) there was a high chance you'd die before spring.
Given that these are no longer issues in our society, is it still a relevant thing to celebrate?
Given that I've been hearing stories about poisoned or drugged "treats" being handed out by sickos for the last 20 years, is it a safe thing to celebrate? Even with parental supervision.
Given that we're constantly complaining about the sense of entitlement youth seem to have, that kids today have no manners or respect for anything, why would we encourage it even once a year?
Either way
Happy Hallowe'en :p
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Isms and Oppressive Societal Systems
So my day has just been soured with a discussion about the power of -isms. Racism and sexism to be specific.
When I say soured, well, let me summarise the discussion:
A black man made light-hearted jest about how he'd spent last week surrounded by 8 menstruating women - and survived.
He got a barrage of abuse about how it was a terribly sexist thing to say and perpetuates the oppressive system of gender stereotyping.
Maybe it's an older woman thing but we use men's hormones against them all the time. It's a commonly acknowledged 'truth' that men are like linoleum - if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them forever. At least half of the media advertising that is aimed at men is designed purely to get them thinking with the wrong head and if that isn't using their hormones against them what is? Sex sells and it sells to men most commonly.
It continued and the original chap was cast as the Terrible Misogynist Oppressor making jokes at women's expense - worse than what I've just posted above. I commented at this point. I felt that this woman was projecting her own issues and that commenting on a fact doesn't not equal prejudice.
Apparently letting the little -isms slide because it's come from someone who "doesn't really mean it" is what enforces the big -ism mindsets and institutionalises the oppressive systems. This is offensive to the educated and empowered women out there.
As a strong, educated and empowered woman, I found the rampant sexism in this woman's post to be more offensive than his observation. Let's be honest, when we're menstruating, women usually are more moody, sometimes irrational and sometimes just downright crazy. My teenage daughter went through a patch of going into a violent rage with only the merest provocation (and sometimes none at all) when she was pre-menstrual. Denying these facts - or implying that they're faulty through some sort of "everyone knows" pseudo-science - is to demean us as women. And the hardest thing for me is that women are the worst for doing it.
I struggle with the way women are expected to be in the workforce. I remember a woman I worked with who had every fourth Monday off work. It didn't take a lot of guess work to figure out why, but she was quickly labelled as 'unreliable' and 'needed to get it sorted' and 'it's not an excuse for anything these days, there are all sorts of medicines and products that allow you to just soldier on.' Why should we? Why should we pretend that it doesn't happen? Why are we expected to be the same every day of the month when the truth is that we aren't?
When did we become so de-feminised? (Yes I think I just made up a word). It's come from many of the feminists, sadly. To so many in our modern society, equality with men has come to mean we're the same as men, indistinguishable without some sort of genital examination. That's just not true, it's not fair and it's dishonouring us as women.
This dreadful conversation then went into the realm of totally crazy - she can't be sexist, she's a woman. Just like black people can't be racist. I was then further insulted by being told that I was going by dictionary definitions rather than academic ones and better educated than me people understood the underlying truths of those statements in ways that I really was just not smart enough to grasp. (Not quite those words, but that was the message).
And it went around again to institutionalised -isms and oppressive systems and then white privilege. And I was insulted based on being a white woman, but it wasn't racist because "people of colour cannot be racist".
I bowed out of the conversation at that point. If this is what Universities are teaching, the Gods help the next generation - they'll need it. I'm not the oppressor, how is it reactionary when aimed at me?
The "racist and white privilege" complaint brigade (and worse, those who make claims to being educated and smarter than the rest of us) seem to have missed something. The couple of hundred years of American slavery is apparently the Ultimate Oppressive System. We can't possibly compare it to many more years of Feudalism or Vassalage or Serfdom or the Pogroms or the Inquisition or the Holocaust. We can't be playing games of "more persecuted than thou", we can't even see the "ethnic cleansing" between black tribes that is currently happening in Africa as being remotely similar. No one can complain about any of these things or even discuss them, unless you're part of the oppressed.
All of these isms and this kind of reactionary (or should that be over-reactionary) responses are missing a simple concept. One simple thing that if people could grasp the world could be a better place. But they don't, and then we either have the silly overdone histrionics like the conversation that spawned this blog post, or we have apologetics from people who see their own race or gender as the root of all evil and I find myself feeling embarrassed for them whenever they start apologising for how they were born.
What is this simple concept? We're different and that's okay. It's okay to notice that we're different and sometimes to celebrate our differences. It's not okay to treat someone as less than you because of those differences. Being pro-Women doesn't have to mean being anti-Men. Being proud of your race doesn't have to mean you're discriminating against or oppressing other races.
I attended a friend's Pacific Island Graduation ceremony. This was a special occasion held at the Christchurch Town Hall for the Pacific Island students who were graduating from University that year - it was organised by the Pacific Island group on campus and the only requirement for membership to that group was Pacific Island birth or parentage - ie, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian etc. This was separate from and in addition to the standard graduation ceremony that all students have.
My friend commented that she felt a little sad because if she'd been a white New Zealander she wouldn't have had this extra ceremony. She also commented that she felt sad that you could never create such a group - it would immediately be labelled as racist and white supremacist and you'd be getting death threats. And she was right.
But it can't be racist because it's not white folks doing it. Just like women can't be sexist and other such idiocies.
I read a Ruth Rendell murder mystery. Race was a huge part of the plot. There was a comment that has always stuck with me.
I don't want the world to be Melting Pot like the song says. I like that we're all different. I don't see being all the same as a worthy goal for humanity. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.
I like that men are men and women are women and all the variations in between. I like that men and women are different, they look different, they think differently, they have different strengths and weaknesses, they smell different, they often react differently to situations, to threats and to emotional events.
I like that black people are different to white people and different again to those from Asia and the Pacific Islands and Australian Aborigines. I like that Germans are so fundamentally different to Italians in so many ways.
I love learning about these differences, I love finding the similarities too but I don't believe that those differences should be ignored or we should pretend those differences don't exist. I think our differences make us special. I know that there will always be those who think that different equals a threat, but there are fewer of them now than there were.
It's okay to be different. It's okay to celebrate those differences. It's time we did more of it.
When I say soured, well, let me summarise the discussion:
A black man made light-hearted jest about how he'd spent last week surrounded by 8 menstruating women - and survived.
He got a barrage of abuse about how it was a terribly sexist thing to say and perpetuates the oppressive system of gender stereotyping.
I shouldn't have to explain to you how dehumanizing the 'crazy hormonal woman' trope is.. I shouldn't have to tell you that sexism banks on the 'irrationality' of 'hormonal' women in order to make us seem less logical and more emotional, ie more 'crazy'.. It's not funny even when men think it is.. Don't forget that you will never have your hormones used against you to make you seem less sane and capable of rational thought..I was left looking at this and saying "Wut?!!"
Maybe it's an older woman thing but we use men's hormones against them all the time. It's a commonly acknowledged 'truth' that men are like linoleum - if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them forever. At least half of the media advertising that is aimed at men is designed purely to get them thinking with the wrong head and if that isn't using their hormones against them what is? Sex sells and it sells to men most commonly.
It continued and the original chap was cast as the Terrible Misogynist Oppressor making jokes at women's expense - worse than what I've just posted above. I commented at this point. I felt that this woman was projecting her own issues and that commenting on a fact doesn't not equal prejudice.
Apparently letting the little -isms slide because it's come from someone who "doesn't really mean it" is what enforces the big -ism mindsets and institutionalises the oppressive systems. This is offensive to the educated and empowered women out there.
As a strong, educated and empowered woman, I found the rampant sexism in this woman's post to be more offensive than his observation. Let's be honest, when we're menstruating, women usually are more moody, sometimes irrational and sometimes just downright crazy. My teenage daughter went through a patch of going into a violent rage with only the merest provocation (and sometimes none at all) when she was pre-menstrual. Denying these facts - or implying that they're faulty through some sort of "everyone knows" pseudo-science - is to demean us as women. And the hardest thing for me is that women are the worst for doing it.
I struggle with the way women are expected to be in the workforce. I remember a woman I worked with who had every fourth Monday off work. It didn't take a lot of guess work to figure out why, but she was quickly labelled as 'unreliable' and 'needed to get it sorted' and 'it's not an excuse for anything these days, there are all sorts of medicines and products that allow you to just soldier on.' Why should we? Why should we pretend that it doesn't happen? Why are we expected to be the same every day of the month when the truth is that we aren't?
When did we become so de-feminised? (Yes I think I just made up a word). It's come from many of the feminists, sadly. To so many in our modern society, equality with men has come to mean we're the same as men, indistinguishable without some sort of genital examination. That's just not true, it's not fair and it's dishonouring us as women.
This dreadful conversation then went into the realm of totally crazy - she can't be sexist, she's a woman. Just like black people can't be racist. I was then further insulted by being told that I was going by dictionary definitions rather than academic ones and better educated than me people understood the underlying truths of those statements in ways that I really was just not smart enough to grasp. (Not quite those words, but that was the message).
And it went around again to institutionalised -isms and oppressive systems and then white privilege. And I was insulted based on being a white woman, but it wasn't racist because "people of colour cannot be racist".
What is now being taught in university is that the isms can only be instigated and perpetrated by the Oppressive System, since any examples of said behavior by the oppressed are reactionary.
I bowed out of the conversation at that point. If this is what Universities are teaching, the Gods help the next generation - they'll need it. I'm not the oppressor, how is it reactionary when aimed at me?
The "racist and white privilege" complaint brigade (and worse, those who make claims to being educated and smarter than the rest of us) seem to have missed something. The couple of hundred years of American slavery is apparently the Ultimate Oppressive System. We can't possibly compare it to many more years of Feudalism or Vassalage or Serfdom or the Pogroms or the Inquisition or the Holocaust. We can't be playing games of "more persecuted than thou", we can't even see the "ethnic cleansing" between black tribes that is currently happening in Africa as being remotely similar. No one can complain about any of these things or even discuss them, unless you're part of the oppressed.
All of these isms and this kind of reactionary (or should that be over-reactionary) responses are missing a simple concept. One simple thing that if people could grasp the world could be a better place. But they don't, and then we either have the silly overdone histrionics like the conversation that spawned this blog post, or we have apologetics from people who see their own race or gender as the root of all evil and I find myself feeling embarrassed for them whenever they start apologising for how they were born.
What is this simple concept? We're different and that's okay. It's okay to notice that we're different and sometimes to celebrate our differences. It's not okay to treat someone as less than you because of those differences. Being pro-Women doesn't have to mean being anti-Men. Being proud of your race doesn't have to mean you're discriminating against or oppressing other races.
I attended a friend's Pacific Island Graduation ceremony. This was a special occasion held at the Christchurch Town Hall for the Pacific Island students who were graduating from University that year - it was organised by the Pacific Island group on campus and the only requirement for membership to that group was Pacific Island birth or parentage - ie, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian etc. This was separate from and in addition to the standard graduation ceremony that all students have.
My friend commented that she felt a little sad because if she'd been a white New Zealander she wouldn't have had this extra ceremony. She also commented that she felt sad that you could never create such a group - it would immediately be labelled as racist and white supremacist and you'd be getting death threats. And she was right.
But it can't be racist because it's not white folks doing it. Just like women can't be sexist and other such idiocies.
I read a Ruth Rendell murder mystery. Race was a huge part of the plot. There was a comment that has always stuck with me.
How would you know when someone is truly not racist? When they're told that the person they want is that black fellow over there and they have to ask which one. The one with the yellow tie.So being not racist is to be colour blind too? How can you tell the colour of a tie if you can't see skin colour? Is being aware that there is a different skin colour being discriminatory about it or oppressing that person?
I don't want the world to be Melting Pot like the song says. I like that we're all different. I don't see being all the same as a worthy goal for humanity. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.
I like that men are men and women are women and all the variations in between. I like that men and women are different, they look different, they think differently, they have different strengths and weaknesses, they smell different, they often react differently to situations, to threats and to emotional events.
I like that black people are different to white people and different again to those from Asia and the Pacific Islands and Australian Aborigines. I like that Germans are so fundamentally different to Italians in so many ways.
I love learning about these differences, I love finding the similarities too but I don't believe that those differences should be ignored or we should pretend those differences don't exist. I think our differences make us special. I know that there will always be those who think that different equals a threat, but there are fewer of them now than there were.
It's okay to be different. It's okay to celebrate those differences. It's time we did more of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)