Only One Manda reviews the life of Mary Daly

Only One Manda just posted a great perspective of the biography of philosopher and theologian Mary Daly, who Amanda describes as a "post-Christian, radical lesbian feminist"--labels which appears to throw up some walls, but really account for her work in tearing walls down.

I was exposed to Daly's writing (I think it was Beyond God the Father) in an Intro to Theology course at school, which focused mainly on Liberation Theology. Later I had the privilege of seeing her give a lecture at my college.

Amanda does a great job of laying out her life and philosophies, and I strongly urge you to read it here. If you can hang with that, you should definitely read something Daly wrote. I'm curious about her thoughts regarding language as a destructive force, as Amanda puts it. Here's an excerpt:

Taken as a whole, the goal of all of Daly’s work is a lofty one. She seeks to demystify our entire culture, confronting patriarchal thought patterns from a historical context and applying her discoveries to current damaging cultural trends. From there, she seeks transcendence, hoping that a radical change will ensue within human cultural context, leading to an equitable and mindful social order. In so doing, she urges women to leave the patriarchal structure of Christianity and to live an intentionally marginal life, in the hopes not only of realizing our personhood, but also of bringing about this new order. The topics addressed by Daly can be broken up into three loose categories: damaging myths and assumptions, the results of these myths and assumptions and how one might begin to transcend our current social order in the interest of pursuing better possibilities.

Sadly, Amanda ends her article by noting Mary Daly's passing only 3 days ago (Jan. 3, 2010) at the age of 81.

Don't forget

oh, Black Friday

words to learn to live by

To get thine ends, lay bashfulness aside; Who fears to ask, doth teach to be deny'd.

Robert Herrick English lyric poet (1591 - 1674)

Live Now

project seen at booooooom!

destroyer will kill

Can't remember why I thought of this, but I revisited this link to a bunch of photos I uploaded about 6 years ago to a graffiti website called "Robots Will Kill": DESTRO

Good memories about my shitty skills and some fun times spent alone trying to get good and dreams about getting down with big writers

enjoy!

dont worry about critiquing this art, positively or negatively, it was a hot minute ago

The religion of environmentalism

On an NPR-broadcast BBC news program yesterday I learned about a British guy who is suing his former employer for philosophical discrimination, based on the legal precedent of religious discrimination. The philosophy in question was centered around Climate Change and his relatively radical environmentalist ethics. Now, I don't know his whole ordeal, and I can't say I support his legal actions, but I was intrigued to think of environmentalist philosophy as a spiritual/religious ethic. The plaintiff said "my belief is underpinned by moral and ethical values comparable to many of the world's religions...it is crucially underpinned by ...overwhelming scientific evidence..."

One listener ("J.R." of Boston) responded to the story to criticize this guy's actions saying environmentalism was in no way similar to any of the world's faith-based "religions" which rely on faith in the unknown, whereas Climate Change has a scientific basis. [This is the best I could do to transcribe what was said:] "Religion is based on blind belief that notions established by others are purported to be the word of a higher being and that your own well-being will be enhanced by following and making offerings to those bringing you the Word. Climate Change is based on scientific evidence. How we are causing damage, how to avoid doing so, and the consequences of not making changes are not a matter of faith..." That is a terrible comparison. I can agree that religion is faith-based, but to deny a spirituality grounded by science is sad. And having to follow and make offerings to the ones bringing (i.e. interpreting) the Word? That statement really narrows it down to the blind leading the blind. [I'm not attacking religion here, but the choices of words used to describe Religion in such a myopic way.]

My thoughts? How cool it is that the ethics of environmentalism have a proof-driven, scientific basis! And it could be argued that there is plenty of unscientific faith and sublime wonderment in nature and environmentalism. For example, compassion toward animals is purely an ethical thing. A stance against pollution is comparable to a stance against murder or, more generally, a stance against Evil.  I love the thought of environmentalism as a spiritual, religious movement. It makes perfect sense. Everything one does to benefit the environment is a religious act; going on a hike (or a bike ride) is a pilgrimage...

A BBC article on the story can be found here

The radio "programme" that includes the quotes above can be heard

here (at ~14 minutes)

Interesting: 9 years without spending money

Daniel Suelo wasn't poor, a victim of bad luck, mentally ill, or even uneducated. He just decided that he wanted to have nothing to do with money. So he gave up consumer culture altogether, and for the last 9 years, he's survived by living in a cave in Utah, and dumpster diving, foraging, fishing, and occasionally hunting for food. He spends his time in the great outdoors--and in the public library, where he blogs about it all.
Suelo must have the lowest carbon footprint of any blogger in the United States. And he's never taken food stamps or other government assistance, and despite what his lifestyle may lead you to believe, he's certainly not crazy. He's just got an aversion to money.

(source: treehugger.com article)

Seulo's blog Living Without Money
-- 
Response to FAQ #14: "You say you don't use money, yet aren't you using products of the money system & relying on the hard-earned money of others? [Revised October 10, 2009]"

"Out Your Backdoor"

Just stumbled upon this website: OYB (or "Out Your Backdoor"). It's a DIY outdoor adventurer site, a collection of resources and philosophies to promote independent action culture and social creativity. Here's what OYB says about itself:

What is OYB? -- An HQ for Indie Outdoor Action
Hi, I'm Jeff Potter and I herd the cats here. OYB has been celebrating thrifty independent action culture since 1991, offering 1000+ hard-to-find stories, links, books and goodies (luggage, too!) that offer the Vision Thing that anyone can afford.

Hard times aren't new. They're the base condition for folk culture and social creativity. They can even be voluntary or not noticed. Doing without some consumer "necessities" can be freeing. What's hard for one is just right for another. Simplicity encourages hands-on culture, integration and versatility. Which makes us want to share and celebrate what we've found. But where? Here!

These efforts can sometimes be lonely. Also, it's easy to lose our bearings. So, again, OYB is a place to share what it's like for you and show how we can make it all work together.

Then, too, indie culture is a great good source of sustainable creative reality for anyone, no matter what their situation. Flush times, lean times, it works.

For now, I'll be posting OYB in the "Good Stuff" link list... Enjoy.

"More to Love"

Well, last night marked yet another ending--the finale of the nth season of ABC's The Bachelorette. C watched only the last few episodes with half-hearted interest, but I still managed to suffer through the part where the two finalists pick out engagement rings that outshine the one I has picked out, and the magical and poetic ocean-side proposals that make the few words I spoke on our apartment balcony seem pretty worthless...

Where there is an end, there is a beginning--this reincarnation being the new series on Fox, More to Love--which is similar to The Bachelor, but it's for people that are overweight. It has been pitched as if they were leveling the playing field or something: "Sure, skinny people find love with skinny people. But guess what? We just figured out that fat people can be loved too--by other fat people!"

Here is the network's version of the show's premise:
MORE TO LOVE, the new dating competition show from Mike Fleiss ("The Bachelor"), follows one regular guy's search for love among a group of real women determined to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes.

So, instead of mixing up the pool of candidates, combining people that represent a normal spectrum of weights, the producers decided to keep them separate.

Reading words like "regular" and "real," one might be tricked into thinking that "regular" and "real" people are somehow equal to the others who find themselves in the other shows (The Bachelor/Bachelorette). "All shapes and sizes"? Hardly.

My problem resides with the fact that the producers think they are doing some sort of favor for big people. (Here is an article discussing More to Love, sort of in light of feminism and size-ism.) (Here's another that pins the show to "Fatsploitation".)

This is not my realm of expertise. Anyone else have thoughts?

"To a certain extent, the sky's the limit."

words of a Chevron employee while standing on a floating oil rig, 160 miles from the coast, 7000 feet above the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico, that pumps 65,000 barrels/day from depths to 32,000 feet below the platform
--
Americans constitute 4% of the global population, yet we consume 25% of the world's oil (which is 2 times more than China and India combined).
--
"We operate like we have oil because we used to have oil." - T. Boone Pickens
--
(stuff I learned from a T.V. special about oil consumption on ABC)
-----------------------------
Sounds like we have to turn a lot of stuff around.
Go ride a bike this weekend.
--
A political cartoon for the weekend:

Reblogged on GetBuck

Fashion Fit

Big ups to Brandi (Get Buck) for posting this brief article/discussion about clothing. Consumerist: Why the Fashion Industry Can't Make Clothes That Fit Actual People.

Apparently, a wave of designers are halting production of "plus-sized" clothing lines. Unfortunately I don't have the time or patience to navigate through all of the discussion, but have meandered a bit through the replies and found some interesting view points:

"It may or may not be a feminist issue. I have no idea. But it is certainly not a consumer issue, big or otherwise. No one is under any obligation to sell what you want... [we are not] owed what we want and no one is obligated to make and sell it."

"[T]he retailers they're talking [about] deal with semi-high end brands. Thus it doesn't really matter what the average "American" is. They are catering to their 'average rich person' demographic."

"It's not semi-high end, though; it's pure middle America chainworld mall-land. It's absolutely where that average figure shops. ...[W]e tend to assume everybody else is doing just fine and it's just us getting screwed, when, as this thread indicates, everybody has a tough time buying off the rack. And to be honest, I get that it's up to a store to carry what it wants and I'm not really likely to be offended by their decision not to market to me. It's just kind of puzzling that there are so many people keen to buy clothes in these sizes and so few retailers interested in doing so."

C and I also get bummed out that popular stores don't cater to our body types. Pants aren't long enough; the smallest waist size is still too big; shirts are too short or too wide. It's apparent that everyone has a long list of complaints.

Part of the problem is--as I see it--that we are falling victim by believing that these popular, nation-wide chain stores are producing clothing to fit everyone. Also, we hope to fit into everything off the hanger.

Unfortunately, the truth is that clothing lines have apparently accepted a certain range of heights and sizes and produce clothes for that range. I'm assuming they also produce different sizes in different quantities based on "market research." This means I can't buy pants from JCrew; I can't buy shirts at Old Navy; Dick's Sporting Goods and Kohls rarely has men's small athletic pants and shorts in stock. And don't get me started on vanity labelling! [Seriously, I wear a 28" waist at Gap and 32" in Dickies.] I've learned what companies fit me, and am overly cautions when seeking out some new article of clothing. It REALLY sucks when cool, small companies can't afford to offer me clothing in sizes that will fit me. It sucks when I think about it, but generally isn't high up on my concerns list.

In fact I have a way of dealing with this: good old fashion D.I.Y. modification. Not only do we expect clothes to fit us, but we expect the clothing look good too. That is as big of a problem in my eyes. I've been so disappointed with all the shit that clothing companies put out. There is one way to fix it though: modification. Cut some pants into shorts, re-hem a shirt, spray paint on some fabric, alter the elastic, whatever! This was my standard M.O. in high school when getting "scene points" had everything to do with being around and being creative. I wasn't satisfied with anything unless I had modified it in some way [Quick tangent: one big criticism of Punk sub-culture is that "punks" are as uniform and unoriginal as their mainstream counterparts. False! Punk kids learn to be creative with their style and despite looking similar, remain very individualistic. And I'm not talking about an un-modified wardrobe straight outta' Hot Topic. Thoughts?] And it continues today. Just recently, C helped me modify a hat I purchased to fit my abnormally large dome a bit better.

I'll agree, it's not as easy to self-tailor a waist on some pants and you can't necessarily start designing and creating clothing, especially using some of the cool fabrics and technologies that are seen in the market. But we need to stop relying so heavily on mainstream chains to satisfy everyone and we need to start being creative about how we take care of ourselves--in this case, getting dressed.

I think, above all, this discussion obviates the need and demand for new designers and retailers in the market. Get your entreprenuership on and fulfill this demand. Sure, Capitalism can be a dick, but it can also be a good way to satisfy demand and get paid. Right?

Old Old-School

I was thinking about how some of the stuff that I think is cool is basically just regressive and nostalgic in essence. You know? I don't mean like mustaches or aviator sunglasses or popped collars or whatever. I mean like bigger scale, not-ironic kind-of stuff. For example, organic agriculture and small, family farms: like I said before, these are throw-backs to pre-War farming methods. What else? Cycling: essentially unchanged since it's invention in the 1800's (unlike the automobile which was developed around the same time). Environmentalism: basically a way of life before Industrialism. Whole foods: came before mass-production, processing, and packaging.

Strangely, all these things tend to connect, I guess under the umbrella of pre-Industrialism environmentalism. Straight up conservatism. 'Ism for shizzim.

Qwote

Worry is a misuse of imagination.
Dan Zadra

Think Obama

Here's a great blog I tracked down in search of pro-Obama reggae music I had heard a while back. I visited today and searched around the site. There are some pretty inspiring videos embedded throughout and one of the "top posts" features a table of information from Salon.com and CNNMoney.com that highlights the 2008 Presidential candidates' net worth. I remember back to the 2004 election when I wanted to bash Bush's wealth, only to be beaten back with stats on the Heinz fortune that floated Kerry's boat. Well, assuming these numbers are true, I'm comforted to learn that McCain's net worth is 31 times that of Obama's, whose net worth is estimated to be $1.3 million. [It just occurred to me, that if Obama could make $1.3 million each year, by the time he is about McCain's age, he would be worth the same amount!] Why would I be comforted by those numbers? Relative to McCain, Obama's supposed net worth is [relatively] closer to my family's, and, if I take another leap, perhaps his life experience is closer to my own and an overwhelming majority of Americans'. That is not to say that I have too much in common, economically, with a guy whose house is apparently worth $1.9 million.

My half-hearted attempt at research (above) led me to this other little gem of information: "[John McCain's] wife Cindy is the chairman of Hensley & Co., the Anheuser-Busch beer distribution business she inherited from her father" (money.cnn.com). This means, in case you are in support of McCain, you might care to start drinking more products with labels like: Budweiser, Michelob, Bass, Hoegaarden, Stella Artois, Rolling Rock, Busch, Bacardi, and Natural "Natty" Light, to name a few. Or not... In fairness, Cindy is cited for founding the American Voluntary Medical Team to help disaster-struck and war-torn third world countries in 1988. Also, it is noted that all royalties from every book John McCain has written have been donated to charities. Even I know that money can be redistributed for good. Don't ask me why I am so against people inherit inordinate amounts of wealth. Excess in a world filled with so many poor and suffering people (many of whom are victims of first world exploitation) just disturbs me beyond much reason. I'm sure there's also a significant amount of jealousy inside of me. ("Get money," right?)

GObama!

Rebate debate

I visited SimplyLiving.net to get motivated to live simply and found this link to the "Don't Buy It" protest against the upcoming rebates to be issued as an effort to stimulate our economy. The arguments presented are compelling...[click banner to link to the webpage!]



I was impressed that the website offered html codes (like the one used to produce the linked banner above) for people to post on their websites and blogs--this is a terrific way to disperse information. As the blog-osphere expands, I'm sure we'll see more techno-activism like this.

Weekend Warriors

"Holy F balls." That's how C suggested I start this entry. I agree that this phrase sums our exasperation at our current situation. We had slept in the morning after Thanksgiving and were brainstorming all the wonderfully relaxing things we could fit in to our three extra days of holiday vacation: "Let's sleep in and wash my car windows;" "let's watch football and go shopping;" "let's clean the house." Somehow the conversation turned to dream house renovations. C asked me what I would do to change the kitchen. We then started talking about knocking out walls around the house. In an attempt to reign ourselves in, I mentioned that if we were going to do anything, we should pick a needed change--like removing this dirty carpet. A blink later and C was on her knees pulling carpet back to appraise the hardwood floors. I think she was as excited as I when we realized the floors were probably in great condition throughout. By noon we had removed all the carpet and padding in the hallway. We went to lunch and wrote down our strategy for refinishing our hardwood floors. However, our flowchart involved a lot less steps than what we've done so far. It is late on Sunday morning and we are at Panera for the third time this weekend. Our refrigerator and oven are conveniently blocked by our couch and a few bookcases. So that is why we ate Wendy's last night.

--

I'm finishing up this post Monday morning. C is at home finishing up the second coat of stain in the living room and hallway. This project has involved renting (for 24 hours) an electrical floor sander and 3 passes over approximately 900 square feet with successively finer sanding pads; scrupulous vacuuming; tack-cloth-ing; and now TWO coats of noxious wood stain (English Chestnut!). That is, not to mention dismantling our home and packing our possessions into the basement and garage. Soon we will be polyurethane-ing. Did I mention that we overlooked the fact that 40 degree temperatures and rainy weather is really slowing down our progress? Well, the floors look gorgeous so far and pictures will be up soon.

--

I want to mention that this project started on "Black Friday"--the day after Thanksgiving--the largest shopping day of the year, and also designated as "Buy Nothing Day" by radical "Jammers and Cultural Creatives" across the developed world. I'm proud to say, in the spirit of B.N.D., C and I rented a tool to work together to improve our house. We didn't have to wade through crowds of sale-hungered mall shoppers to exchange money for services, improve our quality of life, and support the economy. We also improved the value of our house, which might, in a small way, improve the value of our neighborhood. The cynic would remind us that we did buy some tools (a sanding block, a broom handle...) that will remain in our possession, that we quickly went through some inexpensive latex gloves, and that we created a lot of trash. I will remind the cynic that we saved some beautiful wood floors, original to the house (50 years old!), and that carpet should never have been put into the house in the first place. Our house will be cleaner, contain less allergens, and be easier to clean, and our knowledge and independence is increased. Remember the three R's: Reduce, Reuse, Refinish...?

(All my love to C, my beautiful wife, who was a powerhouse this weekend and this morning. She is an incredibly hard worker and inspires me constantly. She was in her element from the point of ripping out the carpet. C, I know this project has been testing your patience, and the fast food we've been fueling up on is killing us slowly, but everything looks great and I am loving you more and more every second. When this project is finished, hopefully I'll make it up to you, big time.)