View from the Loft

Tattoos

I was just catching up on some blog posts by Mano Singham when I ran across his entry on tattoos. Tattoos are--to me, at least--an interesting contemporary cultural feature. I know a great many people who sport tattoos, and not all of these people have been tattooed in their younger years. Mostly tattoos seem to make a specific statement, although the casual observer may not understand the point. Tattoos are both personal and public--personal in their meaning to the wearer, yet public in that the expression of meaning is visible to all. Actually, that's not true, is it? Because some tattoos are never made visible to other people. Instead, they are private and seen only by the wearer, or perhaps someone with whom she is intimate. In that case I think the tattoo has a symbolic function for the person, whether as a reminder, a private feeling or knowledge, or the like. 

I think I understand some of the reasons for people wanting tattoos. My general feeling is hey, it's their choice, and I am not one of those who finds tattoos repellent (in general, although I've seen some individual ones that made me cringe). I have seen some downright beautiful, artistic tattoos using a range of colors and imaginative use of figures. Others, while being black or that dull blue-black color, have been designed by the wearer to signify or mark an event, belief, or some symbol iconic to that person.

At times I've considered getting one where it would be visible only to my mate. But I never do it, because I have a thing about getting my skin marked. I can't even stand it when I get ball-point pen ink on myself--I have to wash it off immediately. Face-painting is another thing that gives me the fantods for some reason. (I don't really know why--is it all that different from wearing, say, glittery eye shadow?) I don't know the psychology behind that, but I can see pretty clearly that if I can't stand washable ink/paint on myself, how would I deal with a tattoo? 

The permanence of a tattoo is one of the points of getting one, I'm sure, but it's that very permanence that is a sticking point for me. How can you say that in ten years you'll still feel the same way about something or someone? Perhaps for some people it's a statement of faith, in a way, a proclamation that yes, this is who I am and will always be. At my age, I tend to see how things and people change over time. I'm still married to the same guy after 47 years, but I can't honestly say that neither we nor our relationship has remained static over that period. 

On the other hand, I suppose a series of tattoos over the years could read rather like a history of one's life, with all its changes for better and for worse.

All of this is not even getting into issues like class, rebellion, social pressures, and so on. Tattoos can be powerful signifiers, yet as they become more and more common, I wonder if they still carry that power. Sometimes I think people's tattoos are just another physical feature, like one's height or eye color. I don't think they pack the punch they used to have. 

But again, that's not what all (maybe these days, not even most) tattoo-getters are going for. 

I've read some amusing, yet unsettling, screeds from those in the manosphere against young women getting tattoos. If I were young, that sort of thing might just tip the balance in favor of my getting a tattoo. Some men just can't stand the idea of women asserting their own identities. Women are "supposed to" look this way or that way, with some in the manosphere even going into long rants against short hair on women. Being told that I "should" be or look one way or another is a sure-fire way to get me to consider doing the very opposite. As a woman, I don't need men telling me how to behave or what my appearance should be like. If they don't like me for me, to hell with them. This is what the men's-rightsers can't stand, so yeah, go for the tattoos, ladies, if that's your thing!

In the long run, I guess I'm pretty much in favor of self-expression. You want purple hair? Fine by me--that's up to you. (I've flirted with the idea of wild hair colors myself.)  If you wear a tattoo of the Nazi symbol, you're doing me a favor by letting me know I need to steer clear of you. If you have a tattoo of a cat over your appendix scar, that tells me a lot, too. If you have a flower on your butt cheek where only you know it's there, well, it's none of my business to begin with, but if you told me about it, I'd assume it holds meaning for you.

Whereas tattoos were once a sign of either military service or rebellion, or perhaps a class signifier, now they're everywhere. As long as they're undertaken voluntarily, why should anyone object?

Hell No!

In light of the recent court decision regarding a public school's prayer banner that had been hanging in the gym illegally since the 1960s, my son's experience with the imposition of religion--specifically Christianity--in his school came to mind.

In objecting to the posters put up by an after-school bible club, he did not experience vilification, threats of assault and even death, ostracism, and elected officials spewing vitriol, as did Jessica Ahlquist, who acted as plaintiff in the lawsuit. (See here, here, here, and here, just for starters--there's much more.)

Jessica Ahlquist ran into trouble from day one. And the school administration was dishonest, claiming that the banner (which began with the words "Our heavenly father" and ended with "Amen") was not a prayer, just a "tradition." This fooled no one, certainly not people speaking at a public meeting about the issue last February. Speakers invoked god and insulted atheists openly.

Here's what happened in my son's case: the Hell No! club hung posters in the hallways featuring bible quotes, quotes such as "only a fool does not believe in God," and threats of eternal punishment for nonbelievers. Our son felt that these were inappropriate in a public school and wrote letters to the principal, superintendent, and school board. While I'm sure that some people thought we put him up to this, we did not. Ethan asked me to check the letter for spelling and formatting, which I did. I had no other input.

A few days later he was called to the principal's office. The school's attorney had been informed of the situation, and some of the school board members contacted a local college to see how such matters were handled there. The attorney  considered that featuring a cross on posters advertising a bible club was legal, but that posters suggesting superiority of a particular religion and containing arguably harrassing statements had to come down. About half the posters were removed.

As Ethan reminded me in an e-mail, "A few people were irritated about the signs coming down, but once I exposed myself as the 'squeaky wheel,' no one was really mean about it and some people congratulated me." I recall running into the superintendent and a few of the board members at a restaurant shortly after this happened and being complimented on our son's letter.

But as my husband pointed out, the religionists have gotten much uglier in the past couple of decades, so who knows what might have happened to him if the events that transpired then were to happen today? Whether it's the political clout of the rabid religious right or fears about a secularist minority that's becoming more vocal and less inclined to stay closeted that's causing such vile behaviors as Ms. Ahlquist has had to suffer, the godbotherers have gotten nastier and nastier.

There is a reason not to tolerate such expression of religion in a public school: as the courts have decided again and again, it violates the separation of church and state. Yes, I remember singing a little song in first grade that started with "Oh, the Lord's been good to me," but that doesn't mean it was right, and subsequently such religious artifacts in state-funded schools were ruled illegal. As they should be. The majority of Americans may believe in god, and particularly a Christian god, but the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority.

We were very proud of our son for taking this action, as I assume Jessica's parents are of her. It isn't easy to stand for what's right when the majority of your community is against you--even without name-calling and death threats.

To all those religious believers and promoters who tell the rest of us to shut up, I can only say, "Hell, no!"

 

"Pro-lifers" show once again their compassion and reverence for life

This is the story of a man who chose to confront the "pro-lifers" who yelled at him and his wife, "You're killing your unborn baby!"

 

He and his wife had received devastating news: the fetus his wife carried had a rare congential deformity that meant it had no chance of survival. No bladder, no kidneys. There was really no choice but to terminate the pregnancy. This is the nightmare every pregnant woman and those who love her fear.

Yet these self-righteous women, with no knowledge whatever of the personal circumstances of this couple, chose to be judge and jury and felt they had the right to shout accusations.

Here's George Carlin on the topic of abortion. Enjoy.

 

 

About that scarlet letter

You might have noticed the red A over there in the right-hand column.

The A stands for atheist. Clicking on it will take you to The Out Campaign, an effort to get nonbelievers to come out of the closet. Atheists in the US are often fearful of admitting to their lack of belief, particularly in certain parts of the country. It can also be difficult to come out to one's family and friends, particularly if one has been part of a religious family or belonged to a church community. The Out Campaign is about giving other nonbelievers a bit of courage by showing them that they're not alone.

I would just like to clarify here what I mean when I call myself an atheist. Really, I think I'd prefer "freethinker" or maybe even "skeptic." But I feel I have to stand in opposition to all the theists out there. I don't believe in a god or gods--but I don't and can't know. (My sister Linn may be surprised to read that, given some of the lively discussions we've had on the topic.) I can't know, but I do not believe that there's a god. It would take a lot to convince me that there is. I can imagine that there could conceivably be some sort of evidence that might convince me, but I can't imagine just what that would be. The "burning in the bosom" of the Mormons or the visions/inner voices of various branches of Christianity (and other religions) wouldn't do the job. I'd figure I was hallucinating or over-reacting emotionally or suffering a brain tumor.

The thing about belief is that it can't be compelled. Despite Pascal's Wager, some of us simply cannot believe in god's existence, and even though Pascal thought that those of us who can't believe should act as though we did in the hope that faith would come, that is not a tenable position for most of us nonbelievers. It feels too much like fakery--and if there were a personal god as Pascal saw it, wouldn't that god know we were faking it? Should we pretend a belief we don't really hold just to hedge our bets?

None of the arguments I've heard for god's existence has convinced me. Christianity is the religion I know best, and I find it nothing short of absurd in its inconsistencies, ahistoricism, antagonism toward science, illogic, inability to deal with the problem of evil, and so on through too many reasons to mention here.  

The lack of a belief in god does not color the world gray and bereft of joy, wonder, love, awe, or gratitude--if gratitude can be felt without anyone or anything to be grateful to--or something akin to it. And contrary to what many believers think and say, lack of belief in god does not render one immoral. Morality does not depend on the existence of god. It depends on our behaving in a way that respects our fellow inhabitants of the planet and the planet itself. I've read so many times, "If you don't believe in God, then why not behave in whatever way you want? What's to stop you?"

All I can say is that it's a good thing those people believe in god, because otherwise, apparently, they would feel no moral compunction at all to behave decently and honorably. More accurately, such people usually fear hellfire and that's what keeps them on the straight and narrow. It's scary that they can't imagine any other reason to behave morally and ethically.

So that's the word on the scarlet letter over there.  I've been accused of "flaunting" my atheism--seems like anyone who's honest about their unbelief has that charge made against them--but if atheists aren't somewhat vocal and up front about it, others may stay in hiding out of fear. In a country where an atheist doesn't have a hope of winning a political office, where stereotypes about atheists abound, and where the assumption is that of course we're Christians, I think it's important to know that there's quite an atheist presence beginning to be seen here in the US and elsewhere. We can't be a presence unless people know we're here, and The Out Campaign is just one of the ways to help establish that presence.

So true.

Good news for medical marijuana advocates

The Obama administration has announced an extremely positive change in the way state-approved medical marijuana will be treated:

The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

While Attorney General Holder had said that states that have passed laws allowing the use of medical marijuana should have their wishes respected, until now there has been no official policy change. Because of that, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) has continued to harass growers and suppliers in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use.

The new policy emphasizes that prosecuting those who are in compliance with state law is a waste of manpower.

It is to be hoped that this will end the jurisdictional free-for-all that has characterized issues around medical marijuana, with federal agents destroying plants grown legally and even, in one case I recall, bursting into a facility in which patients were consuming marijuan--again, legally under state law--terrifying the patients and creating chaos.

The new policy of the Obama administration comes at a time when public support for the legalization of marijuana is at an all-time high according to a Gallup poll. Almost half of Americans support legalization. There's a clear generational divide on the issue, as well as a pronounced difference between liberals and conservatives (boy, that's a shock ...).

This diary by a Kos community member has a good rundown of the latest research on the benefits of marijuana use, in particular its ability to halt the spread of cancer.

It's way past time for marijuana to be legalized. So many myths about marijuana have been encouraged and promoted that many people don't realize its potential. Medical marijuana legalization is a good first step toward stopping the waste of money, manpower, jail space, and lives that occurs in enforcing the ban on marijuana use. There are far better ways to use limited federal and state resources.

Let's hope that this new policy puts an end to the pointless harassment of those who provide medical marijuana in those states whose voters have clearly made their wishes known by legalizing its use.

OMG! A same-sex wedding!

Yeah, we were invited to one on Saturday last, and did attend.

What can I say? It was like every other Midwestern wedding I've ever attended. Nobody keeled over, had a seizure, heart failure, or stroke when the brides kissed, and in fact the traditional clinking of silverware on glasses proceeded apace at the reception, just as at any other (read: heterosexual) wedding.

The ceremony was held at an Episcopalian church, and while the church does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, believe me, it was a wedding, complete with vows of being faithful unto death. The brides, having a sense of fun and lightheartedness, included a reading penned by Sandra Boynton, and the priest (a woman) did refer to the one Bible reading as the "token" Bible reading. So in that sense it was refreshing, to say the least. As we left the church, I said something to the priest on the order of  "what a nice ceremony," and she replied, "Yes, wasn't that fun? I'm going to have to repeat that penguin reading ..."

The reception was very classy, with a guest book of fabulous photos of the brides--I mean really, really professional, fantastic photos--great food, and oh, okay, the wine wasn't that great but who cares. Most people seemed to be drinking cosmos, anyway...

As at every other wedding worth the celebration, I ended up removing my shoes so I could dance, etc. (See/hear "Sweet Old World" on that one.)

My point here is, what the fuck is wrong with people who are against same-sex marriages?? We were all pretty weepy at the beauty of it all, the brides were happy and radiant, and nobody seemed scandalized. Well, one of the brides' uncles was an asshole who refused to attend the church ceremony, but apart from that, it was all pretty usual.

Jim and I just felt completely befuddled as to why people get all foaming-at-the-mouth about same-sex weddings. We were so happy to be part of the celebration, and so happy to see these two women--who have been together over a decade--finally declare their commitment to each other in front of family and friends. They were ecstatic, and so were their guests.

And any time I can dance to the B-52s at a wedding reception, I got no complaints.

Behold teh stupid

Okay, about a month ago I responded to a Facebook poll, comment, or something (I don't even remember now) about mass drug testing, and came out against it.

I received an email from someone whose screen name, at least, is Darlene Mesa:

If you aren't taking drugs, what do you care if you get tested or not?

Since this person was apparently not too savvy on the Constitution, nor too terribly concerned with Constitutional rights, I attempted to enlighten her.

That's like saying, "If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the cops search your house/car/computer?" I have a right to privacy, that's why, and a right not to be searched without cause. That's what living in a democracy is supposed to be about. You know? The Constitution and all? The prohibition against being searched without due cause? For some strange reason, I just have a thing against being treated like I live in a dictatorship. Odd, that, eh?

But I guess the difference between living in a police state and living in a democracy was just too much to wrap her mind around. She came back today with this:

Like I said, if there is nothing to hide...why worry? If you give someone reason to think they have to drug test you or search your possesions, than that is on you. You obviously are on something.

See the mindset? If I don't agree that unlimited police search and seizure is A-OK, then it's because I am "on something." It doesn't enter what passes for her mind that I might have a principled stand against police-state tactics. Not to mention that she assumes that any kind of drug test or search can only occur if I "give someone reason to think they have to drug test [me] or search [my] possessions."

 

How fucking naive can you be??

 

It's "on me" if the cops do an illegal search of me or my possessions? Sorry, babe. We do have that little piece of paper, shredded though it is, that does guarantee us certain rights. One of which is the right not to be searched without due cause.

 

I wrote back with my usual restraint:

Nope. Have never taken illegal drugs in my life (I do like wine, though). It's the principle of the thing, dearie. And the principle is that there has to be a reason for a search -- OMG, it's even in the Constitution!! Have you ever read that document? We as citizens have a right not to be hassled by the police without due cause. That's what is supposed to make us a democracy, as opposed to a police state. In a democracy, people have actual rights.

By your reasoning, any asshole cop could come into my house at any time to search for anything, and I shouldn't care a bit about having someone violate my privacy as long as I had nothing to hide. Fuck that shit! I have a right to a private life unviolated by the police as long as there is no due cause.

It's very telling that you think a principled stand against police state tactics indicates a drug problem. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick. Educate yourself.

Actually, now that I think about it, I probably have ingested illegal substances at some point in my life ... I don't count pot, though. (What reasonable person does?)

 

I just can't stand that excuse for police-state tactics: "What do you care if you have nothing to hide?" I'll tell you--at some point people who have done nothing wrong but militate against state power are targets of the police, FBI, or whatever, and the only thing keeping us from mass arrests and state coercion is the Constitution. Not that I have much faith in our current Supreme Court to keep the Constitution viable.

 

Just another day in Amerika.

Is anybody really surprised by this?

As many of us have long suspected, those who spout off about morality, "family values," the virtue of eschewing masturbation, etc., are not the pure spiritual beings they would have us believe them to be (link):

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Utah was the biggest consumer of on-line porn. Hah!

A few more interesting observations from the study:

• Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

• Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

• States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

I'd feel rather sad about the sexual repression this suggests, but I really can't spare any sympathy for these hypocrites. They condemn the very actions they themselves engage in, and not only in terms of on-line porn as investigated by this study. Look at the behavior of closeted gays in the GOP and among its allies: Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and more--people who condemn homosexuality, who fight the very idea of equal rights for gays, yet who themselves engage in homosexual behavior. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies and divorce rates are also higher in these more religious, conservative states.

How do these people succeed in deluding themselves about their moral superiority over the rest of us fallen, sinful beings? How do they deal with the cognitive dissonance?

Beats me. I don't care how much porn they view, how many kids they have outside marriage, how many divorces they have, whether they're gay or straight, whether they live together without the formality of marriage, or any of that. All I ask is that they return the favor and keep their noses and their laws out of MY personal life and decisions. But that, apparently, is something the religious right is not willing to do, even if, when it comes to sexual matters, they have to lie, deny, and ignore their everyday reality.

If abortion were illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have abortions?

The answer of most anti-choicers is "Duh ... never thought about it ..."

Check it out. Apparently, actual women who actually have abortions don't even enter into these people's thoughts, reasoning, or arguments. They're simply nonexistent in all the romanticizing about the innocent "pre-born" being sadistically killed.