Homosexuality and the Bible, Part Two of Whatever

In my last blog post I touched on the always-controversial topic of homosexuality and the Bible. Specifically, I talked about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how it really doesn't hold up as well as a condemnation of homosexuality as some people believe it does. I was planning on returning to the topic and discussing other Biblical passages that seem to condemn homosexuality and submit what I hoped would be a sound argument against the notion that you cannot be a queer or queer-friendly Christian. That was a month and a half ago, and while it may seem that I've forgotten all about it, rest assured that I have not. This is still a topic of great interest to me, and I would like to do my best to at least touch on the so-called "clobber passages" and defend my status as both a Christian and an ally of the GLBT community.

In my last post, I decided that citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a good way to "prove" that God hates homosexuality. While I do stand by that, I can understand why it's often used as a clobber passage. If we were to interpret the way so many conservative homophobes have over the years, it essentially says that God will destroy you and your home if you are gay. I can't really think of a harsher warning than that. If someone really wanted to scare someone away from being gay (as if that was possible), threatening them with fire falling out of the sky sounds like a good way to do so. Still, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that the people of Sodom were killed for being gay, so using it as a warning against the homosexual lifestyle is questionable at best.

Since the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shouldn't really be used as a warning against homosexuality, the next go-to passage in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, which reads in the King James Bible as such:

"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination."

If that sounds bad, Leviticus 20:13 is even worse:

"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

That is really harsh. I can definitely see why these two are used as clobber passages. They are also the passages that more than ever make me question my Christian beliefs. I'd like to think that Christianity is a religion of peace, love and forgiveness. I don't want to be told that not only are all gay people (or gay men, anyway) sinners, but that they deserve to be executed. It goes against everything that I've come to believe, and these passages are brought up so often that it's easy for someone to think that being a Christian means hating gay people.

Then again, just like the story of Sodom's destruction, these passages are open to interpretation. Yes, it is rather difficult to argue that these passages aren't talking about sex between two men, but as always it's important to know their Biblical and historical context. Leviticus 18:22 is part of the Mosaic code, which states that there are two types of sin: moral sin and ceremonial uncleanliness. Moral sin is deliberate rebellion against God. This is thought to be expressed in the original Hebrew text as "toeyvah," which becomes "abomination," "detestable" or "enormous sin" in many English translations. The transliterated Hebrew texts reads as: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." If "toeyvah" means what traditional English translations would have us all believe, then sex between two men would indeed be "an abomination." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you stand on this issue), homosexual sex appears to not be a moral sin within the context of the rest of Leviticus but a ceremonial uncleanliness. Ceremonial uncleanliness refers to coming into contact with a forbidden object or performing a forbidden act. An unclean act may have been perfectly acceptable for non-Hebrews, but it was forbidden to Hebrews. Those who were "unclean" were often put to death or exiled from their tribe.

I know that what I've said so far does not seem too supportive of my opinion that being gay isn't a sin. At a glance, it does appear that Leviticus 18:22 states that gay people are unclean, and that Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. Then again, Leviticus also states that those who eat shellfish, pick up sticks on a Saturday, cross breed livestock, plant mixtures of seeds in a field or wear clothing made from a blend of two textiles are also unclean. Religious conservatives are always quick to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, yet they all but ignore everything else that it warns us against. They are largely considered to be archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The New Testament even says that Christians no longer need to follow this code and that we are all saved according to a new covenant with God. To insist that we follow just one of these laws while ignoring the rest is ridiculous.

Of course, all of this talk about Leviticus condemning homosexuality is assuming that Leviticus actually condemns all modern same-sex relationships. The truth is that despite what most modern translations would have everyone believe, the true meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is actually pretty unclear. The verse could mean that all sex between two men is an abomination regardless of the context or the relationship between the men, but I cannot help but think that that interpretation was at one point simplified for the sake of conservative homophobes. When analyzing this passage further, one must remember that the structure of sexuality in Leviticus assumes that men are dominant and women are submissive. According to one interpretation by writer and rabbi Arthur Waskow, a sex act between two men could place one of the men in a dominant role and the other in a submissive role, thereby feminizing the submissive man and effectively turning him into "an abomination" since women were not regarded as highly as men in that society. This interpretation could mean that only certain sex acts that I'd rather not describe here were forbidden, not homosexuality as a whole. Other scholars have theorized that the passages in Leviticus that "forbid" homosexuality only do so in the context of pagan rituals, which would make sense since any Hebrews engaging in such rituals would be effectively disobeying their God according to their own religious beliefs. Again, this interpretation doesn't forbid homosexuality outright; it only does so in certain contexts. It's also interesting to note that at no time is sex between two women mentioned; Leviticus seems to be only concerned with the men of Israel.

To sum up this long-winded and possibly offensive-on-at-least-one-level blog post: yes, most modern English translations of Leviticus seem to condemn male-male homosexuality...maybe. The Scripture was written long ago and refers to a time and culture that was very different from our modern society. Many of the laws written in Leviticus are considered archaic to modern Christians, and in my opinion its very few mentions of homosexuality are open to enough interpretation to be disregarded as proof that all gay people are hell-bound sinners. People need to stop citing them as justification for homophobia and bigotry.

And yes, I'm well aware that the subject of homosexuality as a sin comes up in the New Testament. I plan to get to that as well someday. Hopefully, I won't wait a month and a half to do it.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

Homosexuality and the Bible. Yeah. I'm going there (Part one of whatever)

For most of my adult life, I've had what I would call a love-hate relationship with religion, particularly mainstream Christian beliefs. On one hand, I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus. I believe that Jesus wanted all of us to love and care for each other no matter what, and that is a message that I can get behind wholeheartedly. On the other hand, my attempts to more fully embrace my Christian beliefs usually end with me being confronted with opinions and points of view that all but turn me off of organized religion. I believe in Jesus Christ, but I've found time and again that many of His so-called followers are horribly judgemental, elitist, prejudiced and even hateful people who believe that everyone who doesn't live as they do deserve to suffer in Hell for all of eternity. I know that's a very gross (and admittedly probably unfair) generalization of Christian conservatives, but when the most socially conservative right-wing Christians practically become the spokespeople of an entire religion in the eyes of many it becomes hard for a social liberal such as myself to identify with that religion. It's tough for me to just turn my back on my Christian faith, but it's also difficult for me to justify being a Christian sometimes. I don't like to hear about people who deserve to go to Hell just for not having the right religious beliefs, and I don't like being made to feel guilty or unsure of myself whenever I find that I agree with alleged sinners and non-Christians.

Over the years I've come to believe many things that the most conservative Christians might say are wrong. It's a long list mostly comprised of typically "liberal" beliefs, and I'm not going to go into great detail about it here. I've been able to justify most of my beliefs by saying that there is little to no Biblical evidence that says that they're sinful and wrong. It's church dogma that suggests that some of what I believe is wrong, and I've always been skeptical about organized religion anyway. However, the one major sticking point with me has been what the Bible allegedly says about homosexuality.

I'm not gay or bi myself, but I know a lot of people who are. These people are no different from me except for the fact that they find members of their own gender attractive, yet that one seemingly insignificant difference is supposedly enough to damn them to Hell for eternity. That has never sat well with me. If two men or two women fall in love and decide they want to be together, who are they hurting? How is anybody in society being affected by their decision? It doesn't make any sense to me that they would be branded as beyond redemption in the eyes of God, and it would be easy for me to write off this belief as a product of bigotry and homophobia.

And yet, there are passages in the Bible that do appear to condemn homosexuality as sinful. These passages are often referred to as the "clobber" passages since conservatives often use them to effectively end any debates about homosexuality, and probably because it really hurts to hear them quoted whenever the subject comes up. I don't see anything ethically or morally wrong with being gay or bi, but I do have a problem with people passing judgement on others for things that shouldn't be any of their business. And yet, if I were to listen to the religious right and accept most contemporary English translations of the Bible at face value I should view homosexuality and GLBT people as sinful abominations. That goes against everything that I've come to believe, and I cannot in good conscience look down on a person for being gay or bi. Yes, I know the Bible also says that we shouldn't judge others, but how can one believe that when many Biblical translations and even some contemporary teachings suggest that there are those who deserve it? I'm also not going to "love the sinner and hate the sin;" that just sounds condescending. The whole subject has been a bone of contention with me lately, and it has even made me question if I should even self-identify as a Christian.

Then again, I have never truly believed that the Bible was as infallible as many claim it to be. I believe that much of it was divinely inspired, but in the end it was written down by flawed human beings. Add that to the fact that it has been retranslated and reinterpreted countless times throughout history and it's easy to imagine that the meaning of some of the Scriptures have been lost in translation. That made me wonder if perhaps the so-called "clobber" passages were meant to be as damning as they appear to be.

There are about half a dozen major "clobber" passages that are usually said to be proof that homosexuality is sinful. I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible by any stretch of the imagination, but I decided to take a look at these passages myself. This blog entry is already getting pretty long, so obviously I'm not going to get to all of these passages in one post, but I'm hoping to address them all eventually.

Right now, I'd just like to focus on the first Bible story most often used to condemn homosexuality, that of the destruction of Sodom which can be found in Genesis 19. I'm sure just about everyone knows this story, but for those who don't Sodom was a city that was so corrupt and evil that God decided that it should be destroyed. He eventually decides that the city would be spared if ten righteous people were to be found there and sends two angels to find those ten people. They are quickly taken in by a kind man named Lot. Lot and his family prove to be very hospitable, something that cannot be said about the other men of Sodom. Before long, an angry mob shows up and demands that Lot send the two strangers out to them so that they may "know" them. Lot refuses to send his guests out to the mob and offers his two virgin daughters instead. The mob takes offense to this and tries to force their way into Lot's home. By this point, it is clear that there aren't enough righteous people in Sodom to spare it from God's wrath, so the angels help Lot and his family escape (except for Lot's wife, who disobeys their command not to look back at the city and gets turned into a pillar of salt) while God destroys the city with fire and brimstone and kills every other man, woman and child in it.

I've never really cared for this story, not because of what it's about but what it has come to represent for many people. To me, it's just a story of God punishing wicked people. The people of Sodom must have done some horrible things to deserve being wiped off the face of the earth. That much is clear, and I'm mostly fine with that. What I do have a problem with is the meaning that has been attached to this story.

The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the strangers in Lot's home. That can mean many things, but traditionally it is thought to mean that they wanted to have sex with them (the New International Version of the Bible even explicitly says that). Naturally, right-wing conservatives and homophobes have latched onto this interpretation and assumed that the unrepentantly homosexual men of Sodom were so overcome with lust after seeing two strange new men in town that they went into a sexual frenzy and decided that they needed to have sex with them, an act so disgusting and sinful that it justifies genocide. I have a huge problem with this interpretation for a few reasons. First of all, it's offensive. Regardless of what some people seem to believe, GLBT people are generally not perverts who are slaves to their sexual desires. They are no different from anybody else, and their sexuality is only a small part of who they are. Secondly, it implies that Sodom was destroyed because of an attempted homosexual orgy while completely ignoring the fact that God had already decided to destroy it before the events of the story even took place. Never is it mentioned explicitly that God is destroying Sodom for this reason. Finally, those that prescribe to this interpretation of the story rarely seem to take into account that the mob probably wanted to brutally rape and possibly kill the strangers. Rape is a violent act that is all about power, control and humiliation; it's a far cry from a consensual sexual encounter. Far too many people get hung up on the fact that what the mob wanted to do involved other men as opposed to the fact that rape is horrible no matter who it happens to or who commits the act.

Of course, those that see this story as a "clobber" passage never take into account the fact that to "know" someone can have a few different meanings. It is very possible that it was meant to have sexual connotations in this context, but it could also mean that the men of Sodom simply wanted to know who the strangers were. Sodom had recently been at war, so it would make sense if its inhabitants were wary of strangers. Perhaps they wanted to question them to see if they were enemy spies. Even if what they really wanted was to rape them, the rape would've been a way to humiliate and torture them if they were enemies. This was actually a very common practice with soldiers at the time. Such rapes were about power and humiliation, not sexual desire.

I'd really like to think that taking a closer look at the story of Sodom will allow people to see that it takes some pretty big assumptions and leaps in logic to assume that it was intended as proof that God hates homosexuality. Later verses in the Bible even state that the people of Sodom were destroyed because they were violent, inhospitable and uncaring. It's never once explicitly stated that their sin was being gay, and yet people have been supposedly reading between the lines and seeing that for hundreds of years.

Well, this first post turned out to be a lot longer than I had planned. I'm hoping I didn't offend or scare anybody off, but this is something that has been on my mind lately and I wanted to talk about it. Maybe if I'm up for it I might go through with my plans (yeah, right) to talk about the rest of the "clobber" passages and show that Christianity really shouldn't be as dismissive of the GLBT community as it seems to be at times.

Another "Special Edition" version of Star Wars for Blu-Ray

When it was announced that all six Star Wars films would be released on Blu-Ray in September 2011, people became understandably excited. After all, this is arguably the biggest film series of all time being released on a high-definition format at last. Why wouldn't the legions of Star Wars fans all over the world get excited? After all, they are getting their favorite films in a format that they deserve, right?

Actually, it turns out that there is probably bound to be a ton of controversy associated with this new release. It's a well-known fact that George Lucas likes to tinker with his work. When the original Star Wars trilogy was re-released in theaters back in the late 1990s, it came with plenty of updated special effects intended to clean up the rather dated look of the original films and give us all the version that Lucas allegedly intended to give us the first time around. Depending on who you talk to, the changes made to these films are either too minor to think about or the biggest travesty in the history of film. I was kind of in the middle of the road. While I appreciated some of the updated visuals such as the more impressive Death Star explosions, I was bothered by other changes such as the truly grating musical number that was added towards the beginning of Return of the Jedi or the infamous moment where Greedo shoots at Han Solo before getting killed in the first film. Overall though, I wasn't bothered too much by the changes. I certainly didn't think they ruined or improved the film. For the most part, the films that I grew up watching remained intact, and I gladly purchased the "special editions" on DVD simply because it was Star Wars on DVD.

I was mostly on board with picking up the Blu-Ray editions of the Star Wars saga when they come out later this month, or at least I was all for picking up the original trilogy. However, I changed my mind when I heard about some of the changes that were being made once again. For the most part, the changes that I heard about don't bother me a whole lot. I'm sure the CGI that was added in the first place will be redone with the latest technology so that it looks more realistic, and I have absolutely no problems with minor changes like having ewoks blink with computer-generated eyelids.

There is, however, one major change that I have a huge problem with. I could describe it, but I think it would be better to show you:

(Spoiler warning: I'm sure almost everyone who takes the time to read this blog has already seen these films many times, but the few of you who haven't are about to see the climax of the entire series. Stop reading now if you don't want to know what happens. Also, climb out from under your rock and rejoin civilization. It's not that scary out here. Trust me.)

(Note: Since this is a Star Wars clip I don't know how long it will be up on this blog before it gets taken down. If you can't see it, I apologize.)

Based on the controversy surrounding it, Darth Vader yelling "NOOOOOO!!!" as he tosses the Emperor to his doom seems destined to be the new "Han Shot First." I already mentioned the change made to the first Star Wars that turns Greedo's murder into self-defense, but in case you don't know what I'm talking about there is a moment in the original version of Star Wars where the space smuggler Han Solo shoots a bounty hunter named Greedo with absolutely no warning. It's basically a cold-blooded murder and a major character-defining moment for Han. It solidifies him as cold, ruthless, and willing to do anything to save his own skin. When the special edition came out, that character-defining moment was changed. Greedo takes a shot at Han at point blank and misses him, prompting Han to shoot back in self-defense. It's a minor change, but it softens Han's character too much. Also, it looked horrible. Harrison Ford's head shifts to the side to avoid getting shot in an effect that looks like it was done by an amateur with a laptop. The later DVD release changes it again to have Han and Greedo fire at each other simultaneously. It's better than the first special edition version, but in the eyes of many fans the damage had been done.

As for the change made to the pivotal moment shown above, fans are already saying how it has ruined their favorite film series for all time. Instead of "Han Shot First" t-shirts, we may be seeing something to the effect of "Vader Didn't Say No" shirts at some point in the next few years. In the original version, Vader doesn't say a word when he decides to save Luke from the emperor, but we can practically see the emotional crisis happening just beneath his mask. You can almost see Darth Vader become Anakin Skywalker again for the first time in over 20 years, and it is actually a very powerful moment because he does so without saying a word. It's a seemingly minor change, but it does cheapen a great moment in the film.

Will I shell out the money to buy Star Wars on Blu-Ray? I'm not so sure right now. I guess it would be nice to see these films in a high-definition format, but I've never really cared much about that before. I have Star Wars on DVD, and if I ever decide to purchase another version of the trilogy it will most likely be the original versions that don't have the "special edition" updates. Perhaps in the end, Star Wars doesn't need all sorts of fancy updates. The films have been as popular as they are for so long because they are fun, entertaining films. Good films don't age, no matter how long they've been around.

On Being a Feminist and What it Really Means

A few months ago on this blog I essentially "outed" myself as a feminist when I voiced my approval of the worldwide SlutWalk movement in general (look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about) and SlutWalk Minneapolis in particular (once again, look it up). Since then, while I cannot say that I've been heavily involved with many feminist causes I have been meeting and spending a lot of time around feminists. It's had me thinking a lot about what feminism is and what some other people think it means. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people don't have a clue.

Pat Robertson once described feminism as "...a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." I'd like to think that most sane people wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Pat Robertson has to say about anything, but even such an extreme and laughably inaccurate definition is indicative of what some people think about when they think of feminism. Feminism has a very bad rap in certain circles. There are a lot of people who imagine feminists as angry, militant, overly-masculine lesbians who despise all men on principle and who believe that we should be a purely matriarchal society. They couldn't possibly agree with or even get along with men because of their irrational hatred of anything with a penis. By the same token, no man could possibly agree with them without becoming traitors to their own gender.

As I am writing this, I am realizing how ridiculous this concept of feminism truly is. It's almost cartoonish, really. Real feminists do not hate men. In fact, many of the feminists that I know have husbands or boyfriends whom they love and respect very much. They also do not believe that women should be in charge over men. What feminist truly want is for men and women to be treated equally. No more. No less. I think it's really a shame that more people don't realize that. I've met plenty of men and even some women who practically run away screaming from anything having to do with feminism because of the misconceptions that they have. I'd like to think that more people would be willing to stand up for feminist issues if they realized that the movement was about social justice and equal rights and not declaring war on men.

That being said, the big question on my mind is whether or not I would truly call myself a feminist. The short answer to the question would be "yes," but there is more to my answer than that. I can be called a feminist as long as I am standing up for women's rights, but I don't believe in standing up only for women. I'd like to think I stand for social justice and equality for everyone in general. I may wear the label of feminist when I stand against the ill treatment of a woman, but I will also stand up against the ill treatment of anybody. Historically, those in this country who haven't been white, privileged, heterosexual Christian males have been the victims of some kind of discrimination or prejudice. Women happen to fall under a large umbrella of people who have been treated unfairly for being different from those who are in charge, but the same can be said for Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, the handicapped, and GLBT people. In other words, I believe in standing up for anyone whose rights are somehow being repressed. If the rights of white, privileged, heterosexual Christian males were being repressed, I'd fight for them too.*

Yes, you can call me a feminist if the shoe fits because I would agree that it does at least part of the time. I'd prefer not to attach a label to myself too firmly, though.

*I know there are some people who seem to think that white, privileged, heterosexual Christian males are being oppressed. Believe me when I say that this is not happening. Just because there are people who disagree with white, privileged, heterosexual Christian males doesn't mean that they are oppressed. They are still very much in charge, no matter how much they say that their "American way of life" is being threatened.

Captain America, The Avengers, and Franchise Filmmaking

I finally got around to seeing Captain America: The First Avenger the other night (by "finally" I mean that I didn't see it on opening weekend like seemingly everyone else; I waited a week). Overall I have to say that it was a lot of fun, sort of a WWII-era action movie on steroids that features a likably straight-laced hero with a big heart. It's not the best movie from Marvel Entertainment (that title still goes to the first Iron Man), but it's still a great time at the movies.

It did have me thinking about where the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is heading and about a practice that Hollywood has that I like to call "franchise filmmaking." Some of the snobbier, more cynical film critics who have reviewed Captain America have absolutely loved to point out the fact that the movie allegedly only exists as a setup to next summer's The Avengers, which will team Captain America up with fellow Marvel superheroes Iron Man, Thor, and the Hulk. For the record, that's not entirely true. Most of Captain America works just fine as a stand-alone film. There are some fun shout-outs and Easter eggs to be found (Iron Man's father plays a major role), but for the most part viewers who have never picked up a comic book or seen any other Marvel movies will still be sufficiently entertained.

Then again, the critics aren't entirely wrong about this movie being a setup to The Avengers. The movie is bookended by a prologue and epilogue that set up the Captain's role in that film. These bookends are really what got me thinking about mainstream Hollywood movies these days and how they are all too often used not as standalone films, but teasers for a bunch of sequels, spin-offs, and crossovers.

(From here on in I will talk a lot about what happens in Captain America: The First Avenger, including how it ends. If you haven't seen Captain America yet and want to, stop reading now. If you stumbled across this blog looking for a simple review, here it is: Captain America was good. Go see it.)

Once the film covers the hero's origin and turns skinny Steve Rogers into the super soldier Captain America, the main plot involves Cap leading an elite military unit as they destroy the military bases of Hydra, which begins as Adolf Hitler's deep science division during World War II but becomes its own independent entity when its leader hatches his own plot for world domination. The climax of the movie has Captain America taking control of a war plane armed with weapons of mass destruction that are intended to destroy every major city in the US, including Cap's home town in New York. He doesn't know how to land the plane safely, and he would end up killing millions of people if he were to keep it on course, so he makes the ultimate sacrifice. He crashes the plane somewhere in the Arctic and is apparently killed...sort of. Thanks to a prologue and an epilogue showing the Captain's frozen body being discovered in the Arctic and revived in 21st Century New York, we know that he will live on to fight in The Avengers next summer.

Anyone who knows about the Avengers of the Marvel Comics universe probably figures that Captain America's fate at the end of the movie is a foregone conclusion. After all, he's been the flagship member of the group since the 1960s. Still, the way it is presented on film is very typical of Hollywood's tendency to make movies not as standalone films but as lead-ins to multi-movie (and multi-million dollar) franchises. This practice has always both fascinated and infuriated me. On one hand, I like the idea of telling a story over multiple chapters, and it can be fun to watch part of a story unfold and anticipate what is going to happen next. On the other hand, Hollywood tends to go overboard with this concept. A story told in multiple chapters is all well and good, but a good movie should be able to stand on its own. I've seen way too many movies that simply do not work because the studios that are releasing them are obsessed with turning them into franchises with no less than two sequels. Plot lines are left unresolved, climaxes are unsatisfying and don't resolve the main conflict, and the most egregious examples of these movies actually end in cliffhangers. When I sit down to watch a movie, I want to see it end in a logical and satisfying way; I don't want to watch what boils down to a glorified television pilot.

I have to admit to being excited about The Avengers. I grew up reading Marvel comic books, and I think the fact that someone is making an earnest attempt to recreate the Marvel Universe on film is great. Still, I'm left wondering what would've happened had Captain America not featured the bookends showing its hero being revived in the 21st Century. We would've essentially had a big-budget summer action movie that looks to all the world like the latest in a long line of superhero movies meant to set up another franchise, but in the end it would've appeared to pull a fast one on everyone by killing off the hero. The last we would've seen of him would be him saying goodbye to his would-be girlfriend and heroically sacrificing his life to save his country. Everyone would remember him as a great hero, the legendary super soldier who fought and died for the good of the world. It would've been a neat way to end the movie, and one that casual moviegoer wouldn't expect. Cap would of course come back for The Avengers, but it would come as a nice surprise to anyone who doesn't know the character's comic book history.

Sadly, I don't think Hollywood would have the guts to do something like that. In the end they will always follow the money and set up the almighty franchise. The revelation that Captain America lives on in the 21st Century in no way invalidates or cheapens the experience of seeing him onscreen, but I think it would've had more of an impact if it came as a surprise next summer instead of a taste of what the public should be getting excited about next.

My name is Tom, and I'm a Technophobe...kind of.

Okay, maybe calling myself a technophobe isn't entirely accurate. I usually have no problems using computers or cell phones on a daily basis (after all, I'm using a computer to write this blog post). I can honestly say that I'm not as enamored of modern technology as many other people seem to be, though. My reactions to the latest and most sophisticated smart phones, tablets, HD TVs, video game systems, and computers generally range from boredom to aversion depending on my mood. All I ask from a cell phone is that I can make phone calls, I'm happy with an obsolete computer as long as it's still functional, I'm more likely to play video games from two decades ago than anything on an X-Box, and I could care less about my TV's resolution.

I've never seen anything wrong with this; it's just who I am. Unfortunately, I sometimes get the impression that the rest of the world doesn't agree with me. I know people who NEED their computers, cell phones, and televisions to be state-of-the-art, and when they find that I don't share their enthusiasm for technology they look at me like I'm crazy. I don't like watching TV because it seems like every other commercial tells me that I need a brand-new smart phone to qualify as modern human being. I grew up playing video games, but I don't fit in with other gamers because I rarely play modern games. Sometimes I feel like the rest of the world has left me behind, and I no longer fit in with a lot of people because I don't drool over the latest smart phones on the market.

That last sentence came out a little melodramatic and self-pitying. It wasn't meant to. The truth is that I'm fine with being left behind in the technology race, mostly because I honestly don't care to be part of that race at all. I actually think we all rely a little too much on computers, so much so that I don't think people in a generation or two will know how to function without them. Technology does make our lives easier when it works, but what happens when it doesn't? I often see people - rational, intelligent people - reduced to deer in the headlights when a computer system goes down. They are unable to do their jobs, communicate with others, or even enter their homes in one case when a power outage left residents of a friend's apartment building stuck outside thanks to the failure of computerized locks. The cynical side of me is darkly amused by this, but for the most part I find it frustrating and a little scary. I'm not paranoid enough to believe that computers will bring about our ruination, but I do believe that the time will come when people will not know what to do when their computers or cell phones do not work for whatever reason.

I guess you can call me a bit of a technophobe. You can also call me weird, crazy, or anything else you think may apply to me, but this is just how I feel on the subject.

Standing Up to Rape Culture

Today, I’d like to talk about what many people have dubbed “rape culture” and what some people have been planning to fight it.

Yes, you read that right. My third post on this blog and the first one in a couple of weeks is going to be about rape.

I’m sure at least some of what I’m going to say is going to make someone feel really uncomfortable, or maybe even angry. Well, this isn't an easy subject for me either. In fact, the very concept of rape is something that disturbs me on a deeply fundamental level. I don’t like to talk or even think about it, but there are some things that need to be said. I’m not the first person to say them, and I most definitely won’t be the last, but there are just too many people who don't understand what rape is really all about. The more people who say what I have to say, the better.

The reason why I'm writing this now is due to a new movement that started in Toronto back in January. On January 24, 2011 a representative of the Toronto police department told students at Osgoode Hall Law School that women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like "sluts." Naturally, this insensitive remark angered a number of women who were tired of society's "blame the victim" approach to dealing with rape, and on April 3rd an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people took to the streets of Toronto in what was the beginning of SlutWalk. The purpose of this demonstration was to stand up to the damaging and misogynist stereotypes of women who are said to be "asking" to be raped because of how they dress and act. Those participating in the walk wanted everyone to remember that no always means no, no matter how provocatively a woman is dressed. The movement has proven successful enough to inspire others to organize satellite SlutWalks all over Canada, the US, and even Europe and Australia.

As a heterosexual male, I'm sure I'm expected to have certain reactions to the whole SlutWalk movement. I could make a lunkheaded comment about how I'd like to see a bunch of hot chicks parade around in skimpy outfits. I could dismiss the SlutWalkers as a bunch of man-hating feminists who need to be put in their place. I could laugh the whole thing off and make the old joke about rape being surprise sex you didn't know you wanted. I could even miss the point completely and shame the SlutWalkers for being indecent enough to present themselves as "sluts." There are bound to be reactions just like these all across the board from a lot of people, but I cannot share their point of view. I know there would be people who will be asking for my man cards for saying this, but I'm all for SlutWalk. I think it's about time that people stand up to the disgusting practice of shaming rape victims and show everyone that no woman deserves to be raped. Not even the "sluts."

As much as people like to deny it, rape culture is a very real thing. Since the beginning of recorded history men have been seen as the stronger and more dominant gender, while women have often been viewed as property to be used as men saw fit. Women seemed to exist as nothing more than servants to their husbands, and it was perfectly acceptable for men to belittle, beat, and even rape women to put them back in their place. We can tell ourselves that we now live in a more civilized society where that behavior is frowned upon, but the truth is that old habits die hard. While women do have rights that they didn't have hundreds of years ago, the idea that they exist primarily to serve or please men is alive and well. We can see it whenever a woman is judged by her appearance, as if she's worthless unless she's pretty enough to catch a man's attention. We can see it whenever rapists justify their actions by saying that their victims "asked for it" with the way they dressed. We can especially see it whenever a woman is seen not as a human being but a "bitch" or "slut." Yes, we can tell ourselves that we live in a civilized, politically correct society where men and women are treated as equals, but this clearly is not the case. This is why movements like SlutWalk are so important. The women in our society who have been belittled and shamed for the crime of being "sluts" need to have their voices heard.

If you want to know more about SlutWalk, you can visit the main website at http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/. As a Minnesotan, I also would like to point out the upcoming SlutWalk in Minneapolis. It's still in the planning stages, but you can check it out on Facebook or follow it on Twitter. Just go to the Satellite SlutWalk link on the main website and scroll down to SlutWalk Minneapolis (or just follow the link right here).

Well, I think I just outed myself as a feminist with this post. I'm still not turning in my man cards.

What's in a name?

One of the hardest things for me when I decided to start this blog was deciding what to call it. I wanted something catchy and memorable, but I also didn't want it to sound too goofy or irreverent. After all, I still plan on keeping this sounding more professional even if it's still a personal blog. I didn't want a name that was too stiff and formal, but I still want people to take some of what I have to say seriously. That's not going to happen with a silly blog title that is only funny to me.

As you can probably guess, I tend to over-think things like names and titles. I can't help it; I guess it's in my nature. Strangely enough, it has proven to be my undoing at times. I've been known to throw my hands up in frustration and give up on stories, articles, even characters in role playing games (yeah, I'm a geek) just because I can't find just the right names for them.

Messed up? Maybe, but like I said, it's in my nature. It's like a kind of writer's block, or maybe an excuse for having writer's block. Whatever it is, it's one of the reasons why I sat on my grand scheme of creating a public blog to act as my soapbox for so long.

Fortunately, I've got a great resource in the form of my beautiful, clever, and all-around wonderful wife. She was the one who came up with the name "Herding Cats" while we were thinking of possible titles. Perhaps you think it's a strange name, but as I gave it more and more thought it grew on me. I'm not planning to have a central theme to this blog; it will be about whatever I think happens to be worthy of discussion. It won't be all random thoughts and observations about life, but it may have a bit of organized chaos, kind of like trying to herd cats.

That, my friends, is the reason for the title. For what it's worth I think it's catchy, memorable, and general enough to fit a blog that's about a little bit of everything. It also happens to describe my life at the moment, but that's a story for another time and another blog.

P.S. My apologies to cat lovers who may stumble in here looking for a pet blog. I like cats, but I don't have a whole lot to say about them.

Allow me to introduce myself

I've been meaning to start my own blog, and now I've finally gotten around to it.

Anyway, my name is Thomas Plante, and I'm currently trying to make ends meet as a freelance writer and musician. I may add "viola teacher" to that as well. I have lived in the Twin Cities metro area of Minnesota for my entire life, and despite the bitterly cold winters that tend to scare a lot of people away I actually do like living here. I love the changing of the seasons, and it's nice to live in a place where the arts are appreciated.

I can't say that I have a definite focus for this blog yet, but those of you who take the time to come back and read this regularly can expect posts about writing, literature, music, film, society, and whatever else happens to catch my attention that I think warrants a blog entry. This is intended to be a semi-professional/personal blog, and while I'd like to use it as a place to post some of my more professional writing, I may include more personal posts about myself and what I'm doing, but I promise not to indulge myself with rambling posts about how much my life may or may not suck. I have a Livejournal account if I really need to vent.

Thanks for stopping by my new corner of the blogosphere. Things may be pretty sparse at the moment, but I plan to keep this thing regularly updated. I hope to see you again soon.