This was a great year. Well, I think it was anyway. I accomplished quite a bit. I took the GRE and did quite well, I volunteered with some kick-ass folks at my favorite kick-ass non-profit, I started writing creatively, I applied to grad schools, I paid off my car loan, and on top of it all, I jumped out of an airplane.
This is the end of a decade, too. Everybody's talking about it, so I started thinking about where I was ten years ago and where I might be ten years from now. I feel like it would be completely pointless to say that I've grown a lot over the last decade. Ten years ago, I was 14, so if I hadn't grown up at least a little bit since then, then I would have some serious problems. When I read the diaries and journals I kept as a teenager, I'm embarrassed for myself. "Boys, boys, boys. Why don't boys like me? Boys, boys. Why am I not thin enough? Boys, boys. I don't want people to think I'm some kind of feminist. Boys, boys. What am I going to do with my life?"
(Interesting note here: A few weeks ago, I found one such journal I kept when I was 18. I flipped it open to a random page, and the first thing I landed on, I had written a really angsty entry that began with, "I don't think Dave likes me, and I don't think he ever will." Yes, that Dave.)
I guess that's pretty typical for a teenage girl, though. I'm proud of the person I've become, and I think 14-year-old Laura would be pretty impressed, too. In high school, I didn't have the faintest idea that I would be a reporter or even remotely interested in a media career. In high school, I thought I was going to be a veterinarian or a cop or a lawyer. Then I got a D in biology, and later decided that I really didn't want to wear a Kevlar vest to work or take the LSAT. Things change, or as some say, shit happens.
Already, I have some pretty lofty expectations for 2010. By the way, what are we calling it? "Two-thousand-ten" or "Twenty-ten"? I think I'm going to go with "Twenty-ten," personally.
New Year's resolutions are kinda cheesy, and I don't keep most of them anyway, but I've still made a list. I'd like to hear yours, too, but not if they're stupid or cliche ones, like "I want to lose weight" (unless you're like my good friend Matt Engelhardt and can write a witty-as-hell blog about it) or "I want to finally chase those rabid squirrels out of my attic crawlspace" (face it: those squirrels are never going anywhere).
My 2010 New Year's resolutions:
1. I will get better at chess.
2. I will learn to play poker.
3. I will set aside one night each week for myself, to read, write, and just veg out. In other words, I will make relaxation a priority.
4. I will not obsessively check my work email and voice mail from outside the office.
5. I will blog at least once a week.
6. I will not let my credit card balance exceed 20% of my limit (except, obviously, in case of emergencies).
7. I will save at least 10% of each paycheck. (Not really a very good resolution. I already do this, but let's just say I'll keep on doing it.)
8. I will write more fiction.
9. I will learn to cook at least one meal that doesn't suck. (NOTE: I am definitely not turning into some little domestic pet. It's just dawning on me that I may need to prepare my own food someday in the not-too-distant future. Besides, I'm not cooking for any children or menfolk, except maybe Dave... and only if he's nice to me.)
10. I will keep about 1/3 of these resolutions.
One final note: Happy New Year, everyone! Have fun and be safe!
31.12.09
15.12.09
Oh, NOW...
I really think the National Organization for Women should can it with this crap. It only reinforces the idea that feminism is just for upper-class white ladies. You know, I 'get' that a Bo-tax would disproportionately target middle-aged women, but at the same time, Botox is a luxury, not a necessity. And it's only become so popular because of our society's fucked-up ideals about female beauty and aging. By opposing the so-called Bo-tax, NOW is kind of saying it's OK for women to be judged on their physical appearance.
In my opinion, the real effort needs to be in expanding basic gynecological health services and prenatal care to all women (and for that matter, expanding basic healthcare to include EVERY American). Botox is a luxury, but a routine pap smear is a necessity that many women go without because they don't have health coverage.
Furthermore, NOW and other feminists need to push body acceptance. People age, and even in youth, we often don't live up to the unrealistic ideals of female beauty put forth by the media and advertisers. A woman's worth goes far beyond her physical appearance, and real feminists everywhere need to emphasize that. We may never be able to change these whacked ideals, but we can do our best to not be held slaves to these ideals, and to me, that means not giving a damn about the Bo-tax.
And one more thing... If you really want to avoid wrinkles in old age, you would do much better to stay out of the sun and slather on the SPF when you go outside. Protect yourself against skin cancer, too!
In my opinion, the real effort needs to be in expanding basic gynecological health services and prenatal care to all women (and for that matter, expanding basic healthcare to include EVERY American). Botox is a luxury, but a routine pap smear is a necessity that many women go without because they don't have health coverage.
Furthermore, NOW and other feminists need to push body acceptance. People age, and even in youth, we often don't live up to the unrealistic ideals of female beauty put forth by the media and advertisers. A woman's worth goes far beyond her physical appearance, and real feminists everywhere need to emphasize that. We may never be able to change these whacked ideals, but we can do our best to not be held slaves to these ideals, and to me, that means not giving a damn about the Bo-tax.
And one more thing... If you really want to avoid wrinkles in old age, you would do much better to stay out of the sun and slather on the SPF when you go outside. Protect yourself against skin cancer, too!
12.12.09
On feminism and stay-at-home motherhood.
The subject of feminism's compatibility with stay-at-home motherhood has always raised hackles among feminists. While some feminists would argue that stay-at-home motherhood is A-OK, others would say that you can't be both a feminist and a stay-at-home mother. (You don't really see so much of this conflict regarding the subject of stay-at-home fathers, however, and I think this is primarily because there are so many more women who forgo work outside the home than men who do so.)
My own opinions on the matter have been evolving for as long as I've considered myself a feminist (since about the age of 17). What I'm about to argue now is something I don't think I would have agreed with even a full year ago, but here goes...
Yes, I think you can be a feminist and a stay-at-home mother.
There are some caveats to this argument, however. To begin with, stay-at-home motherhood is not an inherently feminist lifestyle by itself, or at least, I don't consider it to be. This particular choice is status quo. Stay-at-home motherhood really doesn't do anything to advance gender equality in society, but that doesn't mean stay-at-home moms are altogether incapable of advancing gender equality in other ways.
A woman who chooses this lifestyle, I think, should also acknowledge the great deal of privilege that typically accompanies stay-at-home motherhood. There is a glaring class dichotomy within the subject of homemaking. For years and years, some women (specifically, upper-class white women) were told that this was their only option, that this was the only acceptable lifestyle they could choose. For other women (anybody in the poor or working class), this was not an option at all. For many Americans today, it still isn't an option. How many families do you know that can support themselves entirely on one income?
But having said that, I think a stay-at-home mom can be a feminist. Anyone who argues to the contrary should remember there are plenty of other ways to promote gender equality that don't necessarily have to involve working outside the home. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist when she's raising her children to hold strong beliefs in gender equality, when she teaches her daughters that their worth is not based in their physical appearance or their ability to snag a man and when she teaches her sons that men and women are equal and that they should respect each other and pursue happy, healthy relationships with all people.
A feminist stay-at-home mom would ideally also emphasize to her children that her decision to be a homemaker is a matter of choice , that this lifestyle may be either unideal or unattainable for other women, and that her own choice is no more or less valid than the working mom who relies upon daycare providers to help juggle work and family.
Volunteer opportunities are also great. I think a stay-at-home mom who wants to advance feminist goals/gender equality should consider the various volunteer opportunities available to her. She can volunteer with battered women's shelters, Planned Parenthood, her local chapter of NOW, or any of a great number of other feminist organizations. Why not get the kids involved, too? After all, it's never too early to encourage the volunteer spirit.
Anybody who knows me well, or hell, has had a five-minute conversation with me, knows that I would likely never be caught dead as a stay-at-home mom. I don't really know if I want kids yet, but I do know that if I have them, I'll be a working mom. That will be my choice. Feminism isn't "all about choice," but choice is a major aspect of feminism. In the past, feminism was necessary to ensure women could have a choice about what to do with their lives. Hell, what am I talking about? "In the past"? It's still necessary! Though women have vastly more choices now than we did 100 or 50 years ago, we've still got a lot of work to do.
From my point of view, the feminist movement, however stratified and varied, should value every individual person's contribution to the advancement of gender equality, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant that contribution may be. We can afford to do no less than this.
However, I am still not convinced about the merits of pole-dancing as a feminist choice. :-P
My own opinions on the matter have been evolving for as long as I've considered myself a feminist (since about the age of 17). What I'm about to argue now is something I don't think I would have agreed with even a full year ago, but here goes...
Yes, I think you can be a feminist and a stay-at-home mother.
There are some caveats to this argument, however. To begin with, stay-at-home motherhood is not an inherently feminist lifestyle by itself, or at least, I don't consider it to be. This particular choice is status quo. Stay-at-home motherhood really doesn't do anything to advance gender equality in society, but that doesn't mean stay-at-home moms are altogether incapable of advancing gender equality in other ways.
A woman who chooses this lifestyle, I think, should also acknowledge the great deal of privilege that typically accompanies stay-at-home motherhood. There is a glaring class dichotomy within the subject of homemaking. For years and years, some women (specifically, upper-class white women) were told that this was their only option, that this was the only acceptable lifestyle they could choose. For other women (anybody in the poor or working class), this was not an option at all. For many Americans today, it still isn't an option. How many families do you know that can support themselves entirely on one income?
But having said that, I think a stay-at-home mom can be a feminist. Anyone who argues to the contrary should remember there are plenty of other ways to promote gender equality that don't necessarily have to involve working outside the home. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist when she's raising her children to hold strong beliefs in gender equality, when she teaches her daughters that their worth is not based in their physical appearance or their ability to snag a man and when she teaches her sons that men and women are equal and that they should respect each other and pursue happy, healthy relationships with all people.
A feminist stay-at-home mom would ideally also emphasize to her children that her decision to be a homemaker is a matter of choice , that this lifestyle may be either unideal or unattainable for other women, and that her own choice is no more or less valid than the working mom who relies upon daycare providers to help juggle work and family.
Volunteer opportunities are also great. I think a stay-at-home mom who wants to advance feminist goals/gender equality should consider the various volunteer opportunities available to her. She can volunteer with battered women's shelters, Planned Parenthood, her local chapter of NOW, or any of a great number of other feminist organizations. Why not get the kids involved, too? After all, it's never too early to encourage the volunteer spirit.
Anybody who knows me well, or hell, has had a five-minute conversation with me, knows that I would likely never be caught dead as a stay-at-home mom. I don't really know if I want kids yet, but I do know that if I have them, I'll be a working mom. That will be my choice. Feminism isn't "all about choice," but choice is a major aspect of feminism. In the past, feminism was necessary to ensure women could have a choice about what to do with their lives. Hell, what am I talking about? "In the past"? It's still necessary! Though women have vastly more choices now than we did 100 or 50 years ago, we've still got a lot of work to do.
From my point of view, the feminist movement, however stratified and varied, should value every individual person's contribution to the advancement of gender equality, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant that contribution may be. We can afford to do no less than this.
However, I am still not convinced about the merits of pole-dancing as a feminist choice. :-P
8.12.09
Are you good without god?
My buddies in the Connecticut Valley Atheists recently erected this year's display on the Vernon town green. For those of you not in the know (or not living in North Central Connecticut), the CVA first began doing this in 2007. For years, the town had been displaying a creche on the town green around this time of the year. While the CVA really wanted no displays at all (either for or against religion) on town property ('cause it violates the establishment clause and all that fun stuff), the town decided to allow other groups to put displays up, as well, so that's when the atheist display went up.
There was quite an uproar about it, too. A lot of people felt the atheists were wrong to put up their display or felt they were attacking religion or religious folks. We had angry letters to the editor pouring in, angry comments left on local news web sites, you know the deal. I remember one letter writer criticizing atheism as a "philosophy of despair." (Despair? Hardly! I'm quite happy with my life, thank you very much!) I don't believe their display was ever vandalized, though.
Now, I know a lot of people tend to be of the opinion that "it's OK to not believe in God, but geez, why do you have to go and broadcast it all over the place??" Some people don't "get" why atheists put up displays and billboards and posters and things like that, or they view it as proselytizing, or as an attack on people of faith. I've often heard this opinion coming from other non-religious folks, the "don't rock the boat" types.
But in a society where we're constantly bombarded with religious images and viewpoints, where our political and military leaders consistently invoke God in speeches, where one president even said atheists should not be considered American citizens, it is so important to put an opposing point of view out there. Essentially (and this is just the way I see it), it's about making sure that your voice gets heard, too, amid the din of shouting and arguing. Honestly, why not have that viewpoint out there?
For me, this happened at a pretty pivotal point in my life. I was agnostic for years. Maybe about a year or so prior to CVA's first display, I had come to terms with the fact that I was an atheist. I was carving out this very crucial part of my identity, and seeing that display there on the Vernon town green reminded me that I wasn't alone and reaffirmed that it was absolutely OK to be upfront about my atheism.
There was quite an uproar about it, too. A lot of people felt the atheists were wrong to put up their display or felt they were attacking religion or religious folks. We had angry letters to the editor pouring in, angry comments left on local news web sites, you know the deal. I remember one letter writer criticizing atheism as a "philosophy of despair." (Despair? Hardly! I'm quite happy with my life, thank you very much!) I don't believe their display was ever vandalized, though.
Now, I know a lot of people tend to be of the opinion that "it's OK to not believe in God, but geez, why do you have to go and broadcast it all over the place??" Some people don't "get" why atheists put up displays and billboards and posters and things like that, or they view it as proselytizing, or as an attack on people of faith. I've often heard this opinion coming from other non-religious folks, the "don't rock the boat" types.
But in a society where we're constantly bombarded with religious images and viewpoints, where our political and military leaders consistently invoke God in speeches, where one president even said atheists should not be considered American citizens, it is so important to put an opposing point of view out there. Essentially (and this is just the way I see it), it's about making sure that your voice gets heard, too, amid the din of shouting and arguing. Honestly, why not have that viewpoint out there?
For me, this happened at a pretty pivotal point in my life. I was agnostic for years. Maybe about a year or so prior to CVA's first display, I had come to terms with the fact that I was an atheist. I was carving out this very crucial part of my identity, and seeing that display there on the Vernon town green reminded me that I wasn't alone and reaffirmed that it was absolutely OK to be upfront about my atheism.
"It's not the fall that hurts, it's when you hit the ground"
I usually post these things to both Facebook and Blogger, but for some reason, I didn't post this here yet. It's dated October 17, 2009. Seriously, the most exhilarating experience of my life. I highly recommend it. (Photo by Roger P. Major of the Connecticut Parachutists, Inc.)
From my Facebook post:
I had the most amazing experience of my life today. Although I've never really considered myself a thrill seeker, adrenaline junkie, or even much of a risk taker, today, I jumped out of an airplane 10,500 feet off the ground.
OK, so it was a tandem jump. So I really didn't need to remember to pull the cord, or, well, anything. And statistically speaking, a tandem jump is much safer than even crossing the street.
"Yeah, but you don't need to sign a waiver to cross the street," more than one pessimist responded. I didn't care. I still felt like I had to do it. My father did it. My mother did it. Technically, I already did it, as my mother was pregnant with me at least one time she jumped.
It was amazing. Have I said that already? Let me tell you about it.
We went through a few basics before we even got in the plane. Jim, my tandem instructor, told me that when we approached the door, I was to lean back, rest my head on his shoulder, hold onto my harness, and tuck my legs underneath the plane. Then, we would jump, he'd do a quick safety check (in the air!!) and tap me on the shoulder to let me know I could release my harness and put my hands out in the air.
But it all happened so quickly, I didn't even think about it. I'm not gonna lie: The first few seconds after we jumped out of the plane were the most terrifying of my life. Free fall. My body was traveling at about 120 mph. The best way to approximate this feeling is to stick your hand out the car window while you're driving on the highway. That's about a fraction of what you feel during this free fall.
I also experienced the strongest, most intense "HolyshitOhmygodIjustjumpe
The free fall didn't last very long, though. Or it might have. I'm not really sure. I had pretty much no sense of time while I was doing this. Or space, or distance, or speed.
Once Jim deployed the parachute, I felt like everything just stopped. It was cold, and I was still about 5,000 feet off the ground, but it was actually quite peaceful and relaxing. We had a beautiful view of the New England scenery, and everything was just... quiet. Peaceful. Relaxing.
Jim did a few more safety checks and loosened my harness. (As much as loosening your harness mid-air sounds like a bad idea, Jim explained that it actually makes it easier for the jumper to breathe, and it makes landing easier.)
He steered the parachute over the field where we were to land and instructed me to stick my feet out straight in front of me. I slid to a stop, mostly on my ass. It's OK because I was wearing a jumpsuit.
Once I landed, I couldn't stop giggling. Actually, I've been breaking out into giggle fits all day whenever I think about it, especially those first few seconds out of the plane. I immediately felt like I had to run everywhere. I had so much excess energy to burn off. Or maybe it was the adrenaline. I don't know.
The bottom line is that it was an incredible, exhilarating, life-affirming experience, and if you're thinking even just a little bit about going on a tandem jump, then you should absolutely do it. I highly, highly recommend it.
The end. :)
7.12.09
A brief note on feminism, MRAs, stay-at-home dads, and the military
I know I linked to these already, but if you didn't already see them, here are two very good articles that pretty much encapsulate my problems with what are commonly known as men's rights activists.
I live in Connecticut, and I tend to surround myself with fairly liberal-minded people (at least, liberal-minded in relation to gender roles), so I don't usually get a negative reaction from someone when I identify myself as a feminist. But when I do receive a somewhat negative reaction, it tends to run along the lines of either "Feminists look down on stay-at-home dads. Would you marry a Mr. Mom?" or "Yeah, but women don't have to be drafted, so that's discrimination in favor of women. Shouldn't you support drafting women?"
Let me break it down for you, one at a time.
To the issue of stay-at-home dads. Would I marry a "Mr. Mom"? Um, why wouldn't I? I'll admit that right now I'm kind of on the fence about having kids. I think that's perfectly fine, given that I'm only 24 years old and nowhere near settled in life. But if I did want to have kids? Yes, I would absolutely want to have them with a man who's eager to take a more active role in parenting his children. Yes, I would absolutely be willing to be the "breadwinner," if we decided together that that's how we wanted to raise said hypothetical kids. I've had jobs since I was 15 years old. I'm used to paying my own way, and I don't expect to ever stop.
Along the same lines, I sometimes run into the expectation that as a feminist, I must be a hypocrite when it comes to splitting the check. I must still expect my boyfriend to buy me lots of shit and pay for me all the time. This assumption couldn't be further from the truth, and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself.
Now to the issue of the draft... For reasons unrelated to feminism, I believe that an all-volunteer military is really the best way to go, but if we did have to implement the draft? Yes, women should absolutely be drafted alongside men. Women have had a chance to prove themselves as capable and competent soldiers, and we have every reason to expect that women can serve their country through military service.
People also seem to have this idea in their heads where they automatically equate military service to fighting on the front lines, when that is not always the case. A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of what military service can entails, and while I won't profess to be an expert on the subject, at the very least, I realize that a person can serve in the military without ever seeing battle or having to kill someone.
This is all I wanted to touch on, for now anyway. :)
I live in Connecticut, and I tend to surround myself with fairly liberal-minded people (at least, liberal-minded in relation to gender roles), so I don't usually get a negative reaction from someone when I identify myself as a feminist. But when I do receive a somewhat negative reaction, it tends to run along the lines of either "Feminists look down on stay-at-home dads. Would you marry a Mr. Mom?" or "Yeah, but women don't have to be drafted, so that's discrimination in favor of women. Shouldn't you support drafting women?"
Let me break it down for you, one at a time.
To the issue of stay-at-home dads. Would I marry a "Mr. Mom"? Um, why wouldn't I? I'll admit that right now I'm kind of on the fence about having kids. I think that's perfectly fine, given that I'm only 24 years old and nowhere near settled in life. But if I did want to have kids? Yes, I would absolutely want to have them with a man who's eager to take a more active role in parenting his children. Yes, I would absolutely be willing to be the "breadwinner," if we decided together that that's how we wanted to raise said hypothetical kids. I've had jobs since I was 15 years old. I'm used to paying my own way, and I don't expect to ever stop.
Along the same lines, I sometimes run into the expectation that as a feminist, I must be a hypocrite when it comes to splitting the check. I must still expect my boyfriend to buy me lots of shit and pay for me all the time. This assumption couldn't be further from the truth, and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself.
Now to the issue of the draft... For reasons unrelated to feminism, I believe that an all-volunteer military is really the best way to go, but if we did have to implement the draft? Yes, women should absolutely be drafted alongside men. Women have had a chance to prove themselves as capable and competent soldiers, and we have every reason to expect that women can serve their country through military service.
People also seem to have this idea in their heads where they automatically equate military service to fighting on the front lines, when that is not always the case. A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of what military service can entails, and while I won't profess to be an expert on the subject, at the very least, I realize that a person can serve in the military without ever seeing battle or having to kill someone.
This is all I wanted to touch on, for now anyway. :)
1.12.09
"It's 'Merry Christmas,' mothertrucker!"
With the onset of the last month of the year comes the onset of "The War on Christmas" season. Or did that begin on Black Friday? Or earlier? I don't keep track of these things, but it seems like Christmas shopping season starts earlier every year, so I must be about two weeks behind in reporting on the beginning of this year's "War on Christmas" season.
Whatever. The "War on Christmas" is bullshit anyway. Is there any quicker way to suck the fun out of something than by making that something into a political football? I don't think so.
Quite frankly, I think the people baw-ing every time a cashier wishes them "Happy Holidays" are hypocrites. "Holiday" is too generic, they complain."You're taking CHRIST out of Christmas!" they bleat.
Actually, if you want to get technical about it, there's very little "Christ" in Christmas already, at least the way we celebrate it here in America. Dust up on some history. Many of the symbols we associate with Christmas actually derive from non-Christian pagan traditions predating the birth of Jesus Christ. For example, mistletoe, yule logs, holly wreaths, even the beloved Christmas tree are all non-Christian in origin. Early Christians incorporated many pagan symbols into their own holiday to make Christianity more palatable to pagans (and thus, win over more converts). There's a word for this practice, too: syncretism. And if you want to get really technical about it, astronomers actually believe the birth of Christ happened a lot closer to the summer than to Dec. 25.
So a "good Christian" who wants to "keep Christ in Christmas" should probably be celebrating the birth of their savior in June - and shouldn't get a Christmas tree.
And if you want to throw another monkey wrench into the equation here, the word "holiday" literally means "holy day," so Fox News aficionados should be happy when retailers acknowledge their upcoming winter gift-giving day as holy.
We should all realize by this point that the "War on Christmas" is kind of an imaginary phenomenon that conservative commentators use to stir up white, middle-class Christian rage around this time of the year. It's convenient. The American Family Association needs something to be mad about, and lord knows you can't be angry about gays in the military and women in the workforce year-round. You've got to mix it up a little! It also helps their case that Christians in America are oppressed. (Hint: You're using the wrong suffix.)
If you want proof the AFA is just a bunch of whiny little ninnies with nothing better to spend their time on, click here to read their latest press release condemning Gap's holiday ad campaign. Remember they initially got their panties in a twist because (they claimed) Gap left the word "Christmas" out of this year's ad campaign, when the clothing retailer, in fact, included it in a very in-your-face kind of way. The bottom line is the same anyway: "Happy Holidays! Rah, rah, rah! Buy our shit!"
As for me personally, well, this time of the year gets very stressful, and I do tend to turn into a bit of a Grinch. I'm just trying not to stress out too much and to just kick back and enjoy spending time with my friends and family. Gift giving can be fun if you don't go overboard, and everyone loves an excuse to eat, drink, and be merry. Plus, if Richard Dawkins can do Christmas, then I think I can feel pretty OK about doing Christmas as an atheist.
If you take the politics out of it, then it's kind of a neat cultural phenomenon. It's interesting to see the way we've combined various religious and cultural practices over several centuries to create this one big amalgamation of food, shopping, pine trees, and peppermint. And boy, do I love peppermint mocha lattes!
One more thing before I go, though: I will not hesitate to tease and heckle these "Merry Christmas" warriors. If you force pamphlets into my hands or chide me that "Jesus is the reason for the season," then I will probably get in your face and tell you I celebrate solstice or Festivus or that I worship the sun god or a can of Spam or something equally ridiculous. Just because it's fun to make them sputter.
Happy Holidays, friends! :)
Whatever. The "War on Christmas" is bullshit anyway. Is there any quicker way to suck the fun out of something than by making that something into a political football? I don't think so.
Quite frankly, I think the people baw-ing every time a cashier wishes them "Happy Holidays" are hypocrites. "Holiday" is too generic, they complain."You're taking CHRIST out of Christmas!" they bleat.
Actually, if you want to get technical about it, there's very little "Christ" in Christmas already, at least the way we celebrate it here in America. Dust up on some history. Many of the symbols we associate with Christmas actually derive from non-Christian pagan traditions predating the birth of Jesus Christ. For example, mistletoe, yule logs, holly wreaths, even the beloved Christmas tree are all non-Christian in origin. Early Christians incorporated many pagan symbols into their own holiday to make Christianity more palatable to pagans (and thus, win over more converts). There's a word for this practice, too: syncretism. And if you want to get really technical about it, astronomers actually believe the birth of Christ happened a lot closer to the summer than to Dec. 25.
So a "good Christian" who wants to "keep Christ in Christmas" should probably be celebrating the birth of their savior in June - and shouldn't get a Christmas tree.
And if you want to throw another monkey wrench into the equation here, the word "holiday" literally means "holy day," so Fox News aficionados should be happy when retailers acknowledge their upcoming winter gift-giving day as holy.
We should all realize by this point that the "War on Christmas" is kind of an imaginary phenomenon that conservative commentators use to stir up white, middle-class Christian rage around this time of the year. It's convenient. The American Family Association needs something to be mad about, and lord knows you can't be angry about gays in the military and women in the workforce year-round. You've got to mix it up a little! It also helps their case that Christians in America are oppressed. (Hint: You're using the wrong suffix.)
If you want proof the AFA is just a bunch of whiny little ninnies with nothing better to spend their time on, click here to read their latest press release condemning Gap's holiday ad campaign. Remember they initially got their panties in a twist because (they claimed) Gap left the word "Christmas" out of this year's ad campaign, when the clothing retailer, in fact, included it in a very in-your-face kind of way. The bottom line is the same anyway: "Happy Holidays! Rah, rah, rah! Buy our shit!"
As for me personally, well, this time of the year gets very stressful, and I do tend to turn into a bit of a Grinch. I'm just trying not to stress out too much and to just kick back and enjoy spending time with my friends and family. Gift giving can be fun if you don't go overboard, and everyone loves an excuse to eat, drink, and be merry. Plus, if Richard Dawkins can do Christmas, then I think I can feel pretty OK about doing Christmas as an atheist.
If you take the politics out of it, then it's kind of a neat cultural phenomenon. It's interesting to see the way we've combined various religious and cultural practices over several centuries to create this one big amalgamation of food, shopping, pine trees, and peppermint. And boy, do I love peppermint mocha lattes!
One more thing before I go, though: I will not hesitate to tease and heckle these "Merry Christmas" warriors. If you force pamphlets into my hands or chide me that "Jesus is the reason for the season," then I will probably get in your face and tell you I celebrate solstice or Festivus or that I worship the sun god or a can of Spam or something equally ridiculous. Just because it's fun to make them sputter.
Happy Holidays, friends! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)