Archive for the ‘America’ Category

h1

So I read Janet Reitman’s “Inside Scientology” recently

November 2, 2011

And have been slow to put up anything up about it – mostly because I’m, you know, a mother to an infant, a full-time working journalist, and kind of a proper playwright nowadays as well.

The book has stayed with me, though, and I feel compelled to say at least something, if not write a proper review.

I think we all ought to be grateful to Reitman for attempting to write a dispassionate book on the Church of Scientology. I understand that a lot of the teachings of Scientology are supposed to be this Terribly Important Secret, but as both a member and a fan of the Russian Orthodox Church in all of its wacky glory, it seems to me that Scientology is really no more insane than the rest of humanity’s major cults. I still think L. Ron Hubbard was mostly a con artist (based on the compelling evidence put together by the writers at one of my favourite websites), but certainly some of the stuff he wrote ended up helping a lot of people and whatever, more power to them. And for all of the people who are bitching and moaning about how Scientology made Tom Cruise into a weirdo – no. Just no. Dude was always a weirdo. You can see it in his smile from way back when. Scientology just helped him get in touch with the inner freak inside.

Still, Reitman is right to point out that the way Scientology is currently run makes it ripe for criticism – both from random outsiders who are staring at it in that whole “check out this fascinating slo-mo trainwreck” type of way, and from ex-members. So I’m betting that there will be proper Protestant Scientologists and Puritan Scientologists and, you know, Calvinist Scientologists soon enough, i.e. the church is splitting.

People looking for Shocking! Horrifying! Facts! are probably going to be disappointed with Reitman. She doesn’t trade a whole lot on rumour and her tone is dry. Perhaps the biggest revelation here is that for a non-believer, Scientology is really not that fascinating – in a sense that non-believers who are looking to be fascinated are going to gravitate towards reading about fringe cults who sacrifice their elderly to Jeff, the God of Biscuits, instead.

Perhaps what’s most interesting about Scientology is how, by virtue of a whole lot of secrecy, church leadership has managed to cover up the fact that it’s fairly bland. Even if you account for all of that Xenu and exploding volcanoes stuff. In a world that already has Kali and Hades and stoning evil apostates – is Scientology really that impressive? I guess the price-tags for some of the spiritual packages it offers surely are. In this economy, anyway.

h1

Let’s talk about “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

October 19, 2011

So I finally saw this movie as part of the opening of the 2morrow festival here in Moscow. You might say that as the parents of a little boy, Alexey and I probably should not have seen something like this, particularly on the day that Lyovka turned 3 months old (3 months! Amazing! An entire season of Lyovka!). Yet I’m one of those people who believes in fighting fire with fire – namely, I try to confront my worst parenthood-related nightmares via books and movies. No point in trying to run away from stories such as the one told in “We Need to Talk About Kevin.” Well, inasmuch as this film actually tells a story.

I haven’t read the book, so I can’t tell if this is a faithful adaptation. And I’m not sure if I want to read the book now, because there is a great hollowness at the center of the film adaptation, and it’s got nothing to do with all of that nietzschean “the abyss looking into you” crap. Quite frankly, I just wasn’t that taken with the characters. I ultimately decided that I couldn’t care less as to why Kevin, the title character, is such an utter sociopath – in most scenes, he was just too smooth and polished, I suppose, to come off as real. The soundtrack was a little too ironic – all of those cheerful oldies songs worked for about 20 minutes or so before they became redundant. The great and glorious Tilda Swinton spent entirely too much time washing red paint from various parts of her body and house – I got the visual metaphor the 100th time around, thanks, the 101th time it was shoved in my face made me wonder if director Lynne Ramsay thinks the audience is full of idiots.

By contrast, the real-life sociopath Eric Harris, as described in Dave Cullen’s “Columbine,” struck me as pretty interesting. I suppose this is an unfair comparison, considering that Cullen wrote a nonfiction account of a real-life school massacre – but there was also something gratifying about the way in which Cullen treated his subject matter. He didn’t beat the reader over the head with all of this “ooooh, let’s explore the depraved world of a sociopathic mass murderer” stuff. When you’re dealing with something as horrifying as the events that took place at Columbine High on April 20, 1999, the facts on the ground will speak for themselves.

This isn’t to say that Ramsay isn’t masterful – she is. When she pulls off a scene, she doesn’t merely pull it off – she scores a freaking home run. Who needs to show a school massacre, for example, when a single shot of a blond cheerleader type screaming for help from behind a locked door is chilling enough? When Ezra Miller verbally eviscerates his mother in the middle of a restaurant, you immediately realize what a great director had to have been involved here – to get Miller to totally hold his own in a tense scene with Tilda fucking Swinton (do I hero-worship her too much? Probably). “We Need to Talk About Kevin” is ultimately a movie that’s been overcooked, but it’s also the kind of movie that makes you want to watch more of Lynne Ramsay’s work. And that says a lot – because I’m not one of those epic film junkies who has to know what’s going on in the industry 24/7 (which, considering my present career trajectory, is a bad thing… hm…), and my days of trying to write actual film criticism are pretty much behind me.

All the way in Moscow, it was just nice to get a glimpse of the doors of an American high school, really. Those doors I am nostalgic about… the ones that the evil Kevin locks with yellow bike lockers. Is it bad that I was just looking at them and going, “I want to hear the click and hiss of those doors one more time”?

h1

It still weirds me out to see ‘Lolita’ equated with porn

September 4, 2011

Different strokes, I guess…

…Yeah, I’m secretly 12 years old.

h1

I have been paying attention to the goings-on in U.S. Congress

August 8, 2011

I’m mostly just in horrified awe, is all.

h1

Jose Antonio Vargas

June 22, 2011

It is a DISGRACE that someone who was brought to the United States as a child, in complete ignorance of his illegal status, should have to suffer in the way that Jose Antonio Vargas has suffered.

It was painful to read this piece, because immigration issues *always* leave me very nervous myself, and though I’ve done my fair share of country-hopping, this stuff never gets easier. It’s not easy when you go the legal route – and I imagine it is a thousand times worse for people who are forced into an scenario that involves anything illegal. People don’t deserve this kind of punishment, and they especially don’t deserve it if they never had control of the issue to begin with. If Jose’s grandfather had shot someone – would we hold little Jose responsible? Why the hell do our laws then make it OK to hold Jose responsible for a bunch of fake documents? Are fake documents worse than murder? Guess they are – if those awful, no good, stealin-mah-job immigrants are involved somehow, right?

A goddamn Pulitzer winner can’t sleep at night, because of just how ass-backward the system is. Priorities. We’re doing them wrong.

h1

Dear Scott Adams, it’s mostly FEMALE lions who hunt. And so on.

June 16, 2011

So Scott Adams, the man behind Dilbert (oh the humanity!), showed his ass again. I read about it on Feministe. I’m not going to link to his original post – because screw it.

Still, I’d like to address it. Because oddly enough, I do agree with Scott Adams on one important point – there certainly IS a crisis of masculinity going on in countries like the United States. Though I don’t believe that said crisis hinges on the whole notion of “ZOMG men are not allowed to rape! Their natural instincts are being suppressed by hairy-legged feminist-types!”

First of all, let’s get real about rape – it happens, and most of the perpetrators get away with it. Every once in a while, you’ll have a terrible story like the Duke lacrosse fake rape thing – but the majority of sexual assaults are real, and nobody presses charges afterwards. There is usually too much shock, denial, and, hey, most women are raped by guys they know. It’s hard for them to reconcile such a breach of trust with the image they have in their heads – the image of the guy as just a normal fella.

Most rapists, I believe, don’t even refer to their actions as “rape.” Some are sick individuals who get off on the violation, but the majority, I think, don’t really get the concept of consent, and have been brought up to believe that certain women and girls are “asking for it,” etc.

There are also frequent cases of men raping other men, or boys. And I’m not just talking about prison. Hardly any of that ever gets reported.

And sometimes, women will rape men too. And most of these situations revolve around someone being drugged. And how many of those do you think are ever reported?

So the way I see it, we do, in fact, allow rape. Even though, as a society, we believe that it’s wrong – we don’t exactly deal with the issue. We merely pay lip-service to it.

Now, for some reason, Scott Adams seems to believe that rape is the most natural thing in the world. Which is odd, because how exactly does one define “natural”? Even in some of the most patriarchal societies to date – rape was framed as kinda a problem, whether for property reasons (“You violated my woman! But she BELONGS to me!”) or otherwise. Even societies that think of marital rape as no big deal, for example, tend to think of it as a violation – if not one that anyone needs to worry their pretty heads over it.

Scott Adams believes that men are basically born into a world in which their “natural instincts” are framed as “shameful and criminal.” It’s not that surprising to me that an American man, even a highly successful, even famous, American man should feel this way. Actually, fame and success are sort of part of the issue here, are they not? Being famous and successful, you have farther to fall. You are way more scrutinized. And as such, you being to scrutinize yourself more. And you realize that there are gaps in your self-knowledge. And you can’t address those gaps in a meaningful manner, because you have, indeed, had your sexuality pathologized for most of your life. Just not in the way that you think.

Americans are not big on sexual honesty. We’re not encouraged to make sense of our desires. The best most people can do is learning socially acceptable catchphrases, such as “no means no” – and hardly ever address the issue of why we need such catchphrases to begin with.

Scott Adams writes:

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose.

Society is not organized this way “at the moment.” It has always had rules. Rules have shifted over time, but rules are also the general reason why the “lion and the zebra at the watering hole” is not a valid comparison to men and women and rape. Even if you cast notions of morality aside, our brains are more complex than the brains of lions and zebras. Such complexity demands order – and justification for said order. Order is a fluid concept – but it’s also what has allowed the human species to become dominant on planet Earth.

If a man is just an unrestrained horny animal – then the entirety of human history fails to make sense. Look at Einstein. He was really into ladies…

… In fact, he was a cheater, some people even claim he was a rapist – or just a creep of sorts. He was also, um, Einstein. All jokes aside, I somehow doubt that Einstein developed the theory of relativity simply as a way to avoid dealing with “natural” sexual frustration. Rather, Einstein was a complicated human being, like everyone else, and he had his sexual urges and possibly even his violent urges – and he had his urge to do complex theoretical work. He had an oulet for his ideas – he probably had way less of an outlet for his issues with women. Was his excellence in physics unnatural? Whereas his troubled personal relationships were just dandy?

“We have no choice but to blame men for bad behaviour” – oh no! So if Einstein decided he was just going to run around and hump everything in sight, and he had never become a great physicist, this would be, like, a good thing? A natural thing? I’m fairly certain that Einstein’s brain was bigger than his dick – and I’m also fairly certain that nature, the Holy Grail of guys like Scott Adams, planned it that way – but using one and not the other would be, like, OK? And in the best interests of the human race? Wow, who knew?

I think the real problem with guys like Scott Adams is this whole fact that most American guys are brought up with the idea that they are undesirable (in fact, Einstein may have had the same problem growing up in Munich!). Just like women, when you think about it, but this insecurity is taught in a different way. The average American guy internalizes a lot of bullshit about “alpha males”, and judges himself accordingly. The lucky few are natural-born pussy magnets, the rest have to scramble and compensate somehow – that’s the game. It’s really messed up, and I think it screws up boys big-time. These boys are not taught to value themselves – at best, they’re taught how to be cocky as a means of covering up a bunch of self-esteem issues. They’re taught that their sexuality is totally separate from the rest of their identity – like an atrophied muscle. And women, they’re taught, don’t really like them. And they should pay women back in kind – should they get steamrolled or otherwise humiliated. So hating women and desiring women physically is framed as normal.

It’s a crappy situation and it affects more people than Scott Adams could shake a “round peg” at.

h1

Sweet Lord, there is no such thing as an “illegitimate child”

May 27, 2011

Even a cursory glance at the coverage of the Schwarzenegger cheating-and-paternity scandal shows that WAY too many people still believe in the whole idea of “legitimate children” and “illegitimate children.” It goes beyond mere word-choice. The “illegtimate child” has an aura of embarrassment attached, at best. Oops, your parents messed up, and produced you! If only your dad had kept it in his pants and/or wore a condom! Or else, the child is viewed as an oughtright inconvenience. Some people even think that laws should be rewritten, so that the little “bastards” in question should not threaten a “legitimate” family’s finances.

This gif sums up my feelings on the matter:

I think it's nice, no? And oddly subtle, for a gif of this nature.

I’m not one of those people who can honestly say that she loves her neighbour (especially not when he’s blasting really bad techno at 2 a.m.) or turns the other cheek. Like any person, I’d be pretty pissed off if my husband went off and had a kid with someone else, and I was in the dark about it. The reason why so much aggression and discomfort centers on the child has to do with the fact that the child serves as living, breathing “evidence” of a betrayal. People often project their own insecurities about their relationships onto children like that, without even knowing the child personally or consciously acknowledging what it is they’re doing. All of that is perfectly understandable.

None of it excuses the ridiculous label of “illegitimacy.”

h1

Oh look, Osama’s dead

May 2, 2011

… And “buried at sea”, apparently. Hm. Interesting.

What scares me now is retaliation, the re-imagining of Osama as a “glorious martyr” and so on. Let’s hope all efforts that go in that direction will be amateurish at best.

The Globe and I listened to the President’s address together. “That’s our President – I voted for him,” I told The Globe (speaking of that, I hope the Embassy paperwork won’t be too horrifying for when The Globe is born). The Globe twitched and kicked. “On September 11, 2001, I was in high school,” I told The Globe. “You don’t even know what high school is yet. Anyway, Mr. Che said that the person responsible will be caught. It’s nearly a decade later, and here I am, already pregnant with you, and two wars later, it finally happened.”

The Globe kicked some more. He’s really far away from all of that now, completely oblivious to even the barest notion of international terrorism, of the prolonged conflict in Afghanistan, of civilians killed. He’s far away from all that, and for now, I’m glad.

h1

Bei Bei Shuai: if you’re pregnant and suicidal, then you better damn well succeed at killing yourself!

April 16, 2011

Or so the state of Indiana thinks, apparently.

The logic is flawless, you guys. Of course, they’re not taking it far enough. Next up: charging babies with manslaughter if the mother dies in labour. Charging fathers with murder if the mother dies in labour. If a pregnant woman gets hit by a car and suffers miscarriage as the result – let’s set up a special commission to determine if she were jaywalking, so we can charge her with criminal negligence.

Can you think of better use of taxpayer money in the middle of an unemployment crisis? I sure can’t! I mean, why worry about things like Medicare for the elderly when state legislators can busy themselves with abusing the mentally ill and people suffering from temporary mental collapse?

h1

So this Planned Parenthood thing

April 9, 2011

I was glad to read this morning that at the very least “a GOP push to strip $317 million in federal funding from Planned Parenthood failed.” But at times like these, you have to wonder why, really, do people go after Planned Parenthood. Why is it always in the cross sights? Why is it so easy to convince so many people, at the drop of a hat, that it needs to be the first to go? You can say “because of abortion”, and leave it at that, but most Americans are so vague on abortion to begin with. It’s a word that’s used so much, with so much zeal, that it’s begun to grow more and more abstract to the national conscience. “Well, I’m opposed to it! No need to kill babies! Those women are irresponsible to begin with!” It takes longer to heat up a frozen pizza than to make this standard sort of argument. The argument itself is virtually meaningless. A lot of people have abortions – and the sheer numbers tell us that even among those who make this sort of argument, there will be people who’ll have an abortion at one point or another, or else someone close to the person making this argument just had one last year, or will have one next year.

Maybe all of this is happening because “I’m opposed to abortions” is a whole lot easier to roll off your tongue than “I’m in favour of poor people dying.” Because that’s what such spending cuts are really aimed at doing – they make sure that some poor people simply won’t be around anymore to offend the honest, hardworking, responsible middle-class. Of course, considering the state of the economy, the complete joke of a social net, and the amount of debt so many people are in – being middle-class in the U.S. can largely be an illusion. Trust me, I’ve been there. Supposedly middle-class, and wondering what the hell I’ll eat for the next week. Not being able to afford basic medical care – having to wait until a tooth infection got so bad that I literally could have died from it to finally get it treated at one of the few places in my area where they could at least offer me a discount. And I was one of the genuinely lucky ones, that year. Millions of people have it so much worse. Shit – having a baby this year may mean that I will not be able to pay my student loans on time. I’ve got plans, but if they fall through, my only comfort may be living in Russia. And that’s just how it goes. Uninformed people say, “But Russia! Scary place!” And I say, “for God’s sake, at least I can afford a minimum of healthcare around here!”

So few of us generally want to admit that the system itself is broken, because it means that our place in the system is suddenly under question. Social anxiety trumps the need to be honest – for now. Better to just pretend that it’s “irresponsible poor people” who are dragging everybody down with them.

Remember that old Beatles lyric? “And oh that magic feeling – nowhere to go.” It was when I really felt what that lyric was all about that I began to let go of the idea that I had to appear as though things were fine. Things are not freaking fine, they haven’t been fine for a while. The people who are asking us, Americans, to tighten our collective belts will not be tightening those belts themselves. This thing about Planned Parenthood being a satanic abortion mill is simply there to divide us all. Believe what you want to believe. But don’t tell me that everything’s going to be OK and society will magically be fixed if poor women who can’t afford decent medical care will bleed to death from botched abortions, or else die from cancers that could have been caught early had they had access to affordable screening. These women aren’t the problem.

For more discussion, see Feministe.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers