the divided states.

So. A few months ago I found that my USian family thought it highly socially inappropriate to talk about atheism. There being variety in the family between the devout and the rest of us, one that was upsetting to one of the Catholic children, meant the best course was for the non-Catholics to not speak of it and to distract non-Catholic young'uns if they tried to bring up the subject right before lunch.

It probably shouldn't've taken me so long, but it took the Palin trainwreck to show me that yes, really, this is how America works: you don't talk to people about your religious and political differences. Shortly after the Palin selection, a family member and I were talking to a family friend, someone who naturally she knew way better than I did. I said something about been creeped-out by Palin asking Alaskans to pray for a $30 billion gas pipeline. Caesar. God. It's creepy, that.

Family member says to me, warningly "He's a Republican."

Um, and...?

If I'm telling someone that I think a politician has said something obnoxious, why would it matter what their partisan views are? I mean, isn't that how you have conversations rather than echo chambers? Maybe there's some sort of upside to praying for gas pipelines that I hadn't seen but Republican Guy would know about and could tell me of. I got a conversation; he said that he thought Palin would make a good advocate for disabled people in the Whitehouse, and that's something he really cares about. I asked if he knew her record in that regard - none of us did, at the time - and suggested he check up on it, just because records are firmer than narrative guesswork. (Thanks partly to Kyrias, I later did, and guess what, she halved educational funds for disabled children in Alaska).

A few weeks on, and the trainwreck has seemingly run its course; lots of flying emotions and everyone's made their mind up - her favourability has fallen to near-zero.

Last night M watched Bill Maher's TV show and I saw a little of it too. I had never seen it before. There's no analogue to the US political media in Britain (reason #3515 why everyone hates the film version of V For Vendetta, that); the best comparison I could think of was if Private Eye was a TV show rather than a magazine. Or it's a bit like Newsnight but intentionally both partisan and humorous, rather than merely misanthropic. (I have a habit of describing US TV hosts entirely in terms of how they differ from Jeremy Paxman [vid, first 20 seconds contain NSFW language]. In that regard, watching Jon Stewart softball Tony Blair on Thursday night was quite painful).

Maher, to great applause, announced that many Americans support Palin because they are too stupid.

Two bloggers I read who've posted a lot of election stuff lately are saying the following:

The frightening part of this is that everyone thinks she’s so great, so much so that it seems like more people support SP than support McCain.

For crying out loud, she’s, if not a total psychopath who is incapable of speaking the truth, a total fake. She is not compassionate, the girl next door, or someone who will look out for the average citizen.

And for those people who posted on Salon.com saying that they’re going to vote for her because her husband is hot and because she proves that women can have it all…I think you should all be taken out of the gene pool, pronto.

from Kyrias. (Admittedly Kyrias is a permanent resident of the USA rather than a US citizen. It is kinda funny that we talk about this crap so much when neither of us can vote here).

Well you know what America? You get what you deserve. I hope that when you're all cowering down in your fallout shelters after the nuclear exchange with the Russians, I hope then that you take a moment to question what your fault in all this is. I hope you ask for forgiveness.

from Combat Queer.

None of these were talking about extreme factions in the US, but about an alternate mainstream that really isn't much different in calibre from their own mainstream. As I said to Kyrias over IM later, some people have dumb reasons for voting for Obama too, such as the fact that everyone on his ticket is be-penised. Or that they believe some conspiracy theory about the US right. There are bad reasons on both sides.

So I. Do Not. Get It.

I don't get how you can assume that no one in your entire nation honestly disagrees with you - that no one simply has different priorities to you, or different feelings, that aren't any the less of yours. That their reasoning can be as good as yours and yet add up to a different result. That it's worth your time to degrade people, but not to engage with them.

It's the nonengagement that spooks me. Funny, I expect it on the internet, where everyone filters themselves via the path of least resistance into groups that are supportive and productive for them, where you don't have to constantly justify your 101s. I can understand nonengagement as a consequence of social behaviour. What I don't understand is why USians seem to hold it as an end goal of social behaviour. Why other views must be dismissed, shunned, or simply avoided just because discussion would be bad.

(Nora and Kyrias say there is no culture war. I can take their point on definitions, but what the hell is this, then?)

I got on this train of thought because of exchanging comments on my last post with Daisy, about the lack of deference for religion in the UK, and the expectation that such things are private. Yet in spite of that, it feels like crossing the floor to talk about God is far more common in the UK than the USA. Maybe the lack of deference means that no one is expected to be defensive about their personal opinions. (As ever, politically secular countries can be more religiously fervent and deferential than those which have established churches. The US and France have that in common).

And politics? People disagree. People are apathetic. There are partisan splits between rural areas and cities, between the English and the rest of 'em, between the rich and the poor. Some people pick a side and keep to it, others don't. There is a dinky yellow safety valve for when your side pisses you off. But everyone is equally subject to question, and all politicians are equally targets for mockery, having their record examined, and Jeremy Paxman. Brad Hicks thinks that there is some fundamental difference in terms of how moral codes are applied between the US right and the US left. I can't imagine such an idea being voiced in the UK.

And the idea, the one that Bill Maher was applauded for on the TV, that the people in your country who don't vote the way you think they should are just inferior to you? It's just plain ugly. What's really crazy there is how the US is so up its own ass about patriotism, and yet wont to applaud the degradation of half its people. Either half, any half, depending on the situation.


[fact: I totally did not understand some of the attitudes about presidents and the presidency in the USA until I read something, perhaps on CiF - CiF! - that said it's easier if you pretend that Obama and McCain are competing to become the Queen. That works. Totally. In a 'this place is on crack' way. It explains why no one pied the Shrub when he went to the Olympics, for instance. And maybe why Stewart wimped out on Blair.]


Finally, a few words I read on LJ earlier, related to that study that said that people disagree with each other because of their PHYSIOLOGIES, ohnoez!:

A moment to rant, because I'll never let something like this go by without a comment:

When you are part Cherokee Indian, and have German Jews in your bloodline, you get a bit sensitive when people start tossing about studies that show a genetic difference, an inferiority, in the people that they don't like.It's been used too many times to justify genocide. I don't buy the excuse, that it's a REAL study, with REAL results, or that you were doing it in all innocence. People have been known to FIND whatever they are looking for, if they skew the results enough.

[Kracken, qwp.]

a pile of things:

So, Bridge Troll was fired by Cardone Industries UK Ltd for making a blog post that mentioned the company's religious workplace policies, and his atheistic response to same. He's put the whole story on Lj for the world to see, along with some thoughts about increasingly controlling relationships between employers and employees.

Ben Goldacre is no longer being sued by Matthias Rath, an HIV denialist in the vitamin pill industry. Goldacre's article covers the weakness of evidence used to make claims in the supplements industry as compared with other medical research, and the readiness of people in that industry to shut down debate by means of lawsuit. The Grauniad has more details about Rath's activities in South Africa, where he took out newspaper advertisements claiming that people with HIV do not need ARVs.

Kyrias is investigating Landmark Education, an organisation some describe as a psychotherapy cult. (I believe that much of psychotherapy is more of the occult than the scientific - and I value the occult highly, you know? - but these guys sound truly special).

Aishwarya is all in favour of book burning. The blonde one thinks there's nothing 'ironic' about loving knitting and baking. And Kiya is on the warpath, with love.

Americans and their crazy social taboos

I keep meaning to write about Everything That Is Clearly Wrong With This Strange Country, but not doing. I could say I don't know where to begin, but a lot of it dispirits as well as confuses me, and then I have to think of the things America does right instead of getting on the internets and typetty typetty type. (I'm only blogging now because I have some immigration paperwork due. Srsly). Things America does right include icecream, butterflies, the cost of videogames, children (though I am sure that every nation on earth has better children than the UK), mainstream gay clubs, shoes, icecream and icecream. But some things here are terrible to contemplate. I am never going to an American mainstream straight club ever again. (And I really want to write about that here, but damn, it'd be hard). I get a lump in my throat every time I remember that most Americans do not know the taste of bread. (I am going to make them some next weekend. Disaster awaits).

And sometimes I just trip over stuff that I know isn't their fault really. My belief that they urbanised wrong is clearly biased and unfair. They have a whole vocabulary for being polite, and I am not fluent in it. And their social taboos are in places I never expect them. (If I knew what my social taboos were, I couldn't possibly tell you).


I am c/ping from my own Deadjournal here:


Look. We (that is, a large and assorted group of relations) were off foraging for lunch and I ended up in a car that also contained M (driving) and two smaller people - his stepbrother (aged 16) and his half-nephew (aged 11). I was asking the elder of these about his tatts and piercings, pretending I took his replies (and him) very seriously, like you do when people are 16. Nod, smile, He then starts talking about his atheism. Nod, smile, a few supportive comments, 'it's good that you've thought about this for yourself', nod. It seems to me that the two boys have had this discussion before, and the younger is not happy with it. We reached our destination right then, and M's sister is already there, and the 11-year-old is fretting and going over to her.

So I get chastised by M and his sister for not being a responsible adult and somehow putting a stop to that conversation. I have always thought that afflicting the comfortable was part of my remit (at least when I am not being a giant wuss), but no, I am supposed to be shutting the closet door and leaning hard against it. Of course it wasn't that they disapproved - they were concerned about what their elder half-sister would say if her little boy told her of this shocking thing, that a teenage relative talked about atheism and an adult openly encouraged this. Never mind that he surely already knows his step-uncle is an atheist; responsible adults are not supposed to facilitate that kind of conversation. Never mind that neither M nor his sister are Christians themselves.

What.

This kind of thing leads to me feeling anxious.


I've tried discussing it with both of them and they seem to be making mental leaps that I am not capable of at all. (I have an unhelpful belief that one closet is much the same as any other; just a place between two high walls). M says I have it all wrong and I'm just thinking of the elder kid but his thoughts are of the younger; myself, I don't see any reason for an 11-year-old to be shielded from the fact that not all of his family are devout Catholics. Worse, I don't see why anyone would want their child to assume that no one doubted his religion. What am I not seeing?

Christmas IV [more videogame blogging] & some Christians

So in a new MMO, Age of Conan, female characters are up to 35% less effective than male ones, and this is not mentioned anywhere in the character development process. Why?

Short answer: the game designers did not intend this, it's not like they're misogynists or anything like that - they just decided that there would be attack animations and you could only select a new attack once an animation had finished. Then they allowed the misogynist animators to get obsessed with lengthy boobie shots, thus making the female characters exist to be looked at while the male characters got on with shredding things. For some mysterious reason that we couldn't possibly guess at, the designers did not seek to fix the problem until gamers started complaining.

Long answer:

Let me begin with saying “yes, we here at Funcom agree with you; this is an unacceptable bug”. We never intended for any character to be stronger/weaker than another based on its gender, and we have been working on making the necessary adjustments to correct this issue for quite some time already.

Now, in our game, we have two primary sources of damage; ‘normal’ damage, commonly referred to as “white damage”, and ‘combo’ damage. Making the white damage equal for both Male and Female characters is, in this context, a fairly simple task and something we’ve already done and which should already have been patched out to Live.

For future reference, when I say that it was a fairly simple task to fix it, we’re still talking about modifying, either through actually having an animator work on the animation resource itself or by having a BCC designer adjust the speed-scaling of said animation resource, of more than 150 unique animations. In addition, these animations are fairly “simple”; by which I mean that they are your ordinary attacks and don’t contain any flourishes, sequential blows or other “complicated” stuff.

However, if we move onto ‘combo’ damage, which is what is causing the notable part of this issue, there are suddenly several factors that come into play when determining the final damage. I won’t be wasting too much time in this update to go into detail about every factor, but to quickly list a few they would be stat/modifier/multiplier (which in turn depends on class, level and weapon equipped), length of animation and, although irrelevant to this exact issue any longer, amount of steps in a combo sequence.

The main reason for the discrepancy in damage output that you’re seeing is that the length of an animation isn’t equal for both Male and Female characters in many cases. This is what we’re currently fixing, but there’s roughly 800 to 1000 animations in total that are involved here, and that they are significantly more “complex” than the ‘white damage’ animations mentioned above this naturally takes a lot more time.

Short version of long answer: boobies. FFS.

h/t Dee.


One thought I didn't add to my last gaming post - I'm playing a female PC in the NWN2 xpac, and (because of plotty plot things) this causes the Red Woman, and later Safiya, to allude to Delicious Genderqueer Subtext With Lesbian Overtones. (Um, I guess you can only fathom this bit of my rant if you've played the game, sry).

My first thought: there is no way, from the moment they'd thought up the game's background, that Akachi was going to be anything other than male, or the Red Woman anything other than female. It's only the female PC, if you have one, who is framed as perhaps being genderqueer. I cannot believe that a game plot would ever make a nod to a story's queer subtext if you chose to take a male PC, while not possessing this subtext if you choose a female PC. I think the same root sexism - the fear of women - explains why Akachi (male) in the xpac is framed as having far more to do with you than Gith (female) in the base game is.

(That's when they even refer to Gith as being female, which is about twice ever in all three of the videogames I've played that allude to her. Gith is an icon, and her various legacies have remained among the brightest plotspots in the AD&D canon since her invention in 1981; none of the 3ed manuals mention that she is female, and I had no idea myself til I played NWN2 earlier this year. Floored me, that.)


What both these things reveal is something I've known for a long time; videogames are far more conservative than reality. They're also far more conservative than any other form of storytelling. I wonder if conservatism is perhaps proportionate to the cost of entry into a medium; games are huge projects with slim profit margins at best, and each one has the power to destroy a studio. That means that, you know, the basic variety and tolerance you find out in the real world has to be nixed.


Now, Christians! Anglican ones. Who have decided that yes there will be women bishops, and no they won't be mollycoddling anyone who thinks this is a bad idea. For, mm, a reason I can't possibly fathom, not all Christians are happy about this. Libellum, LJ, qwp:

What I'm currently furious about is a quote further down the article from the Bishop of Fulham, the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, saying that the decision will cause a schism in the church because "I think a lot of us have made it quite clear if there isn't proper provision for us to live in dignity, inevitably we're driven out. It's not a case of walking away."

So allowing women equality makes it impossible for men to "live in dignity"? This is the problem. This. Right here.

For shame, Right Reverend John Broadhurst, you possessive, petty, overprivileged misogynist waste of space. As I understand it, Christ taught that all you need to live in dignity is humility and love. People like you make me glad I left the Anglican communion. A decision, by the way, which I am happy to accept personal responsibility for, unlike your craven whinging about being "driven out" as if you had no will or voice of your own. You have more status and power than most people in this country. You have no damn idea what it's like to not be able to live in dignity. Being driven out, not living in dignity - that's what happens to refugees. What you're having is a tantrum, and I'm disappointed in the BBC for bothering to print it.

And that's not all! Combatqueer brings more:

I know, I know, it seems impossible, but somehow the Vatican has become upset over something that isn't any of its business. [...]

As my Congregationalist grandma once told me, a church fight is like a divorce between five hundred people. Ugly.

Combatqueer is also wondering why the Vatican's opinion is newsworthy. Go read!

the devil in the details

From Churches unhappy over father figures: sadly the Beeb doesn't say exactly who or what they're quoting - I would have liked to know the name of this person, to better say that they're a moran.

But the Church of England has reserved its greatest ire for the decision of MPs to allow single women and lesbian couples to seek IVF treatment without having to consider the need for a father for their children.

Its verdict is stark.

"This vote sends a signal that fathers don't matter," it said.

[...]

The Church of England focuses on how children end up without a father.

"There is a huge difference between a child who finds themselves in a single-parent family through bereavement or breakdown of parental relationship, and those who find themselves in this situation by design, for which this bill allows."

So:

-single parents=single mothers. No exceptions.
-no father at time of gestation=single parent. No exceptions.
-this law says 'fathers don't matter' but saying 'parent' when you specifically mean 'mother' is not a sign that you believe fathers don't matter. (If fathers mattered to you, 'mother' and 'parent' would not be synonyms).

Well fucking done.

*cheers new law*

i'm blogging this!!

teraninse says:
I mean, if your own wedding can't be a highly individualistic, idiosyncratic affair, I don't want to know what can be.
teraninse says:
that's not to say...break out the furries for bridesmaids....but..

So, um, yes. The things that were said by, and to, Kyraninse/Seraninse/Teraninse (with occasional comments from Chris, who I gather was in the same room as her at the time), related in bits and in the wrong order because I can, and edited for brevity & to protect the guilty.

teraninse says:
and when are you getting married?
(and I'd do it again) says:
oh, we got married on February 29th.
teraninse says:
......*boggle-eyed*
teraninse says:
that's...a good anniversary, IMO
(and I'd do it again) says:
*shrugs* it took all of thirty seconds. we picked the 29th because we hate the world.
teraninse says:
*snicker*
teraninse says:
I'm horrified that I didn't know though. @@
(and I'd do it again) says:
no one knows except a few people on my deadjournal list, and a few members of his family, and the two friends who came along with.
teraninse says:
chris: I think that's pretty shabby, for her not to tell me, even for someone who doesn't think marriage counts for much.

This is entirely true, especially in Chris's case. As with many young things (but worse, because I'm such a flybynight floozy), the people I've met have come along in blocks associated with different locations & different educational institutions & different internets fads; Chris has been my friend for roughly 6 years, an extraordinary length of time - outside of my siblings and the blue and purple people, there might be no one I've known longer.

(and I'd do it again) says:
honestly, I didn't put it around much because I'm not proud of it in the least.
teraninse says:
because it was a purely political/practical move?
(and I'd do it again) says:
it's playing a system I hate in a blatantly unfair way.
teraninse says:
...I'm all about manipulating an unfair system to suit me, but then I'm horrible like that.
(and I'd do it again) says:
*nodnods* yeah, I wasn't THAT wary of doing it, but I feel queasy about bragging about it. My siblings knew I was marrying, but I didn't actually tell them about it afterwards - I hope my father doesn't know at all.

There was some talk about the age problem - how young marriages are so not okay in the UK, but pretty normal in the US. (Average age at first marriage in UK: 29 F / 31 M. US: 26 F / 27.5 M. I am twenty-freaking-three). Hint: I am not from the US, so this is generally not okay with me.

teraninse says:
*pokes gently with a poker* it's not bragging just to let people know you got married
(and I'd do it again) says:
but what WOULD I be telling them, if I told them I got married?
teraninse says:
btw, I thought you might want to know, M and I are getting married?
teraninse says:
*spreads hands in shrug*
teraninse says:
Chris was still thinking that you were "going" to.
teraninse says:
I mean, you could have it come out casually over dinner conversation sometime ten years down the road, but.
(and I'd do it again) says:
no, I mean, what would I be conveying to them? that I support Georgia's hetero-only, perk-ridden marriage system?
teraninse says:
oh
(and I'd do it again) says:
that I am into the whole 'marriage' thing with the nice long history of women being property and stuff?
teraninse says:
I'm the chinese immigrant here, no stealing my lines.
(and I'd do it again) says:
that my sex life is now sanctioned by Jesus?
teraninse says:
...you would be conveying that you're getting married to M, who I'm assuming you adore?
(and I'd do it again) says:
yes, I do, but I keep the adoring fairly private...I'm just like that.
teraninse says:
...sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
teraninse says:
even if it has a bit of marijuana in it, it's still a cigar

And now it all gets political, as if it wasn't already:

teraninse says:
I dunno, that's like saying, I'm never willing to go through an affirming ceremony with the man I love -- just because he happens to be male (which isn't PC) and because I get some perks out of it.
teraninse says:
which -- to be honest, smacks of silly to me, on some level. I wouldn't marry chris even for the perks unless I loved him, and so what if it's easier for us just because we happen to be sanctioned by the government? that's...like wanting to chop of your limbs in sympathy of the beggar down the streeet. *bad analogy*
(and I'd do it again) says:
no, it's not because he's male that I have an issue with it, it's because I supposedly could not do this if he wasn't.
(and I'd do it again) says:
if something's restricted to heteros it can't fit with my relationships/my life because I am not hetero and never will be.
teraninse says:
yes...and no
(and I'd do it again) says:
there's no sort of relationship I could have with a man that I couldn't also have with a woman, I'm pretty sure of that
teraninse says:
yessss....
teraninse says:
but I'm assuming you don't want to have the same kind of relationship you have with M with another woman.
(and I'd do it again) says:
not any woman I know currently, no, but that doesn't mean I never will and certainly doesn't mean I never would.
(and I'd do it again) says:
so it's not about sympathy for the beggar down the street, it's about sympathy for MYSELF.

Slightly related; Belle has a shiny new post on the subject of passing, which is more or less what this is about. And I feel upset just copypasting all this, right now.

(and I'd do it again) says:
oh, i didn't even mention how annoying the actual marriage bit was; the judge sprang fucking Jesus on me.
(and I'd do it again) says:
I swear that's not even legal
teraninse says:
this is why you don't want to be in the SOUTH!
teraninse says:
amirite???
(and I'd do it again) says:
it would've helped if the ceremony itself hadn't been so yuckmaking. I'm convinced it didn't HAVE to be - he MUST've had a secular script in a drawer somewhere, surely - but about two lines in I nearly interrupted him to say 'waitwaitiwait who said anything about JESUS?' I should have, really. :/
teraninse says:
hahaha.
teraninse says:
that's...icky indeed.
(and I'd do it again) says:
i didn't want to make a scene. i was having such a nice morning up until then.

The South part seems relevant; now, I'm a n00b here, and I'm also a pretty obnoxious and socially inept human being, but the area seems to have a higher density of totally annoying men than anywhere else I've ever been. The Bookworm tells me that this is part of why her mother had the family move up to New Jersey when she herself was but a small bookworm.

From my Deadjournal at the time: Btw, I totally got married last Friday - yes, on leap day. This is only worth mentioning because the judge was a jackass. (Nakki and M say he wasn't, that he was just a 'traditional southern guy'). He ignored me the whole time and never used my name - M had a name, but I was 'the bride'. He asked (empty-handed) M for the certificate, then gave the fresh copy to M once he'd got it ready, even though I'd given it to him in the first place and I was standing there with a GIANT PURPLE HANDBAG. He even sprang fucking Jesus on me. Bitchface could've asked if we liked Jesus - I didn't feel like I could stop him at that point... (Yes, we must be the only people in _______ County who don't like Jesus, but, dude, that first amendment thing?) *le sigh* I'm not an atheist - if I was, I imagine I'd've been rather madder about it than I am. I believe in god, just not your poxy god who likes his prayers and amens laid on inch thick with a trowel, at my bloody thirty-second no-fee leap-day courthouse wedding. That was just rude, offensive and just maybe illegal. This is not holy matrimony - see, if it was holy, you wouldn't be fussed about whether I was doing it with a boy or with a girl.

There is negative problems - ie, all the above - and then there are positive problems, like this one:

(and I'd do it again) says:
and that's another problem - I don't know any married people and barely ever have done. My parents had a pretty miserable marriage for the first 11 years of my life; M's father's now living in Alabama with his 5th wife, and M's brother and aunt are divorced too...
teraninse says:
*nodnods*
(and I'd do it again) says:
i don't really know my extended family at all - just my uncle and aunt in Preston, who are very Christian and...generally not people who inspire me. So all I see is the big-media-weddings on TV, which are just cringeworthy
teraninse says:
...uck
teraninse says:
yes.
teraninse says:
I think...I'll blog about this at some point.
(and I'd do it again) says:
clearly there should be a WEDDING DRESS with 'I'm blogging this' stitched on the veil........
teraninse says:
CLEARLY!
teraninse says:
there's some slogging through icky-making weddings of both the pagan variety and the x'tian variety. haha
teraninse says:
and...oh darn...but...chinese wedding dress or european? @@
teraninse says:
ack! cultural identity strikes again!
(and I'd do it again) says:
oh, I went to an icky Pagan handfasting once. felt like a big dressing-up game, the couple split up three weeks later
(and I'd do it again) says:
OOOH, what a question!
(and I'd do it again) says:
(I do know another pagan couple who married - in Edinburgh, so I missed it - but a few months later, the wife ran off with my ex-boyfriend...)
teraninse says:
...*sigh*
teraninse says:
...
(and I'd do it again) says:
(the happy couple had been together ten years before that. *sigh*)
teraninse says:
just..no comment.
(and I'd do it again) says:
mm.
(and I'd do it again) says:
so, yeah, there's NO ONE i can look at and say 'I want what they have!'
teraninse says:
nothing wrong in creating your own
teraninse says:
I mean, what's fanfic, after all?
(and I'd do it again) says:
indeed not, but feels like I'm starting with nothing

The elephant in the room, do you see it? No? Good. It shall not be spoken of, for all I am leaning on one of its exploding pink feet. But I will say this of it; I came here - here being everywhere it's taken me - to get away from gender. I hate gender, remember? It's repugnant. Like most of us (of either designation), I could make a long list of all the times I was told UR DOIN IT RONG when I was a girl-child, but that would just make me feel shittier. I cannot tell you how glad I was to find out that there was a way to do this whole love crap without it being about gender roles. (This is still a huge part of why I love slash so fucking much - because I am a big old sop, but I despise gender. It's also why I find lesbian romance a zillion times easier than the hetero variant, and why I've basically wound up wanting to strangle all-but-one of the guys I've ever had a thing for, but I persevere. Being queer gives me a way to do straight).

Whether I feel this way because I'm queer or because I'm me is something the jury is still out on. But I am reminded of a Slate article I read two years ago;

Of course, some opponents of same-sex marriage are just anti-gay. But to dismiss all opposition to gay marriage as pure bigotry is to miss an important point. The key to evaluating the real stakes here is to think of gay rights in terms of two major categories: gay marriage and everything else. [...] And polls show consistently growing support nationwide for gay rights other than marriage. Gallup found that 90 percent of Americans support equal employment opportunities regardless of sexual orientation. And 79 percent support the idea of homosexuals serving in the armed forces, a profound change in public opinion since the 1990s, when President Clinton thought it politically prudent to abandon his push for nondiscrimination in favor of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

But somehow same-sex marriage is a different story.

[...]

Many people get married because they want the established sex roles the institution provides: a blushing, beautiful, white veil and miles-of-lace bride set off against her dashing, handsome, chivalrous groom. Same-sex marriage seems to undermine these very sex-specific statuses, leaving everyone a sex-neutral "applicant." Sure, we could say same-sex marriages involve two brides or two grooms, but something really is lost in this translation: At that point the terms do not describe distinctively gendered roles but are merely gendered descriptions of the same role.

...Dear god, does that last paragraph make me feel ill. I can barely believe that there's anyone alive who wants that, let alone a whole bunch of people who equate it with what your genitals looked like when you were born.

So Kyraninse gets on to the rewriting of affirmation (which is something she posted about yesterday too - and ooh, look, a Punkass post on the topic):

teraninse says:
and as a friend, I wanted to know because I wanted to add my congratulations for affirmation and blessings to the pot, regardless of what the federal system has to say about it. not that congrats and blessings have to be specifically time-tied, but...
teraninse says:
well, sometimes it is. superstition and tradition and all that.
(and I'd do it again) says:
can i ask what the congrats would be FOR, though? it's not like the relationship's changed at all because of it
teraninse says:
I'm working within my paradigm, in which if I ever married chris, I'd essentially be formally announcing to the world that I'm taking this man to be mine and I vow to honor, cherish, protect, and succor until death do us part. [In her blog post she amended this to 'until life do us part']
teraninse says:
and this would be an affirmation that would resonate, for me, within the spiritual realm also, since I believe in intent, spirit, and magic.
(and I'd do it again) says:
*nodnods* I grok that.
teraninse says:
and so...if I weren't willing to say those things, I wouldn't want to get married, even for practical purposes. I'm assuming that you also meant those things when you said them.
teraninse says:
which, to my belief, is, regardless of society and law, a very powerful thing.
(and I'd do it again) says:
yes, but I would've meant them with or without the marriage part. that's just what the relationship is like.
teraninse says:
*nod* marriage is a nice convenient excuse to have a affirmation ceremony, in my eyes. maybe this is just me, but for me it's not binding unless it's been ceremonialized.
teraninse says:
partially because of the paradigms of intent and magic that I work with.
teraninse says:
so -- in my eyes, if I congratulated you on your marriage, I'd be happy for you that this affirmation happened and was now binding, so to speak.
teraninse says:
which is NOT to say, you should advertise your marriage when you don't want to, just to make people happy.
(and I'd do it again) says:
I think I get you now - I guess my main problem is that the affirmation ceremony is coupled (hurr) to a raft of legal benefits that fucks over a huge number of people *of whom I am one*
teraninse says:
that makes sense.
teraninse says:
lots of it.
(and I'd do it again) says:
but I believe in intent, and this relationship is one of the reasons I do.
teraninse says:
but -- I don't see a reason to be ashamed of your marriage per se just because it is supported by a corrupt system.
teraninse says:
or not the marriage itself, but the ceremony of it.
teraninse says:
btw, none of this was supposed to be "chastise chastise, bad, bad thene" -- I just wanted to hash out the why and wherefores.
(and I'd do it again) says:
nah, I get that and thanks, I kinda think I needed to get it out with someone...
teraninse says:
*nod*
teraninse says:
Do you feel like the marriage ceremony is just ...well, not empty ritual -- but can have, can do without, as the chinese would say?
(and I'd do it again) says:
I don't know, because I don't know of one that would be appropriate for me, so I feel like I'm comparing 'can do without' with...nothing. Dunno what 'can have' would be like.
teraninse says:
I've talked about wedding ceremonies at great length with my friends -- one of whom's mother and father got married on a hill top somewhere with witnesses and that was all.
teraninse says:
I also attended a wedding this past summer where ...they exchanged vows they wrote themselves and that was it.
teraninse says:
If you like, and only if you do, I'd be happy to talk with you about what you might like for a possible affirmation ceremony if you feel like the yuck-making should just be ignored on the metaphysical level.
teraninse says:
and ONLY if you feel it's something you want.

Do I? I don't even know. I have too much pride to be any good with bindings, or gods for that matter. I am happy with what I have flung myself into; but I am at my most happy when not putting words to it, when just being here, words and symbols bedamned. Feck. Must hit 'publish post' now.

no furry bridesmaids here.

This is one of the many great things Kyraninse said to me over the other day. I am putting it here while I am busy organising some of the others into a post of blogginess. (Meanwhile, go read her introspective post on race issues fatigue).

There's a story about buddhism. Once, there was an old woman who gave a meal to a monk. Before the monk left, at the old lady's request, he told her a mantra that would lead to enlightenment. Unfortunately, as the old woman was going rather deaf, she mis-heard it. Not having a rosary, the old woman would drop a bean from one pot to another as she recited this mantra --

One day, a monk was passing by a hovel when he saw a strange golden aura coming forth and he knocked on the door. He was very surprised to see naught but an old woman, and he hastened to ask her how she had achieved her spiritual growth.

She said, a monk told me to recite "blargh". The monk was surprised and told her, but you've been saying it wrong this entire time! The old woman was, naturally, somewhat upset, and wanted to learn the correct version. The monk told her the correct version, and then, quite pleased with himself, set off again. By chance, as he was walking away, he saw that the golden glow had disappeared.

He realized that he, in fact, was the person in wrong and hurried back to tell the old woman that he was terribly sorry, but she was right and he was, in fact, wrong. She had been taught another version that was also correct, and it didn't occur to him until he had thought about it some more. The old woman thanked him for coming back to tell her this and sent him on his way again,.

and only the monk knew how close it had been, and of his relief when he saw the golden glow gradually turn brighter as he walked away again.

SO -- it's intent that matters.

people can tell you you're wrong till they're blue in the face, but that doesn't make them right. not even if it's that irritating niggling voice at the bottom of your brain.

Fancults!

As promised. And what better way to conflate religion with fandom than to look at religions that have come out of fandom?

There's three honest-to-$deity religions which are sourced from sci-fi fandoms. Scientology is the most notorious; Gor is also pretty clear-cut, though it's not always referred to as a religion. Then there's the ParatheoAnametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric Discordianism. It may be a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion, or it may be a joke disguised as a religion disguised as a joke. It began with the Principia Discordia and its followers, but was spread by the psychadelic conspiracy epic, ILLUMINATUS!, a book which is as canonical to Discordianism as it's possible for anything to be.

Meanwhile, the Lovecraft fandom has produced the mother of all religious hoaxes in spite of the author being an atheist. (Someone at the Weird Symposium described Lovecraft's world as being a sci-fi speculation based on Darwin and the emergence of atheism. Hm).


Then there's fandom out of religion, a topic which popped up on LJMQ today with winning timing wrt Christian fanfic. The Arthurian mythos is another tangle, though it seems to be moving in the opposite direction - scads and scads of stories first (stories that were steeped in Christianity anyway), and now you meet pagans who incorporate it into their religious beliefs - or insert the myths into a made-up English history that has it that their newborn religion is really thousands of years old. (Many of these people believe Stonehenge and Britain's other ancient monuments were designed by Druids, which is equally untrue; the only truth you'll find at Stonehenge is the stones themselves).

There's a website that claims to expose an Arthurian cultist who operated in New York in the 80s and 90s, one who bases her practises largely on roleplaying games and on, $deity help me, the Dark Is Rising fandom. See here:

The bulk of her ideas, concepts, and practices in regards to metaphysics were obviously derivative of popular fiction; she went so far as to describe Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising cycle of books as a loosely fictionalized account of events in her life. She alleged that Ms. Cooper had been a "friend of the family", especially the Druid/Voudon/Archaeologist father (The name 'Merriman' is actually taken directly from these books, as is the name 'Bran') and had fictionalized the exploits of her and their lives accordingly, occasionally swapping the genders of characters (which was her justification for the lead character in the series's being male).

She did not claim that I was a reincarnate of an obscure figure with a somewhat tangential connection to Arthurian mythology (Gwion Bach) until some time later.

[...]

She was also the main force behind the structure of the group, which was again heavily influenced by the structure of RPG-style 'adventure parties' (I repeatedly insisted that this be abandoned; she adamantly maintained that there was a much finer line between the RPGs that she/we played, and reality, than most people thought. She also insisted that fictional representations in popular books and movies were more useful as metaphysical education than that of established traditions. During the second half of our association, her insistence that White Wolf's "Kindred Of The East" source-books were based on fact, as well as the books of Tim Powers--going so far as to designate one of our 'magickal operations' around a plot-line lifted directly from them--proved to be a breaking point for numerous people.)

That's all pre-internets, not within the same territory I was talking about yesterday. The most famous internet fancult is probably the Snapes On An Astral Plane folks. They are religiously devoted to a Harry Potter character, who they believe to be literally real and able to contact them in their dreams. The wank report is too perfect to be summarised or excerpted, so I urge you to go read it.

[edit: I meant to add this yesterday but forgot; an intriguing comment from the F_W thread. "To me, getting a tat of a character is the same thing as getting a tat of any symbol-- it serves as a permanent reminder to embody certain characteristics, or to uphold a values system, or whatever. I have the Triforce tattood on my back, and it's there because what it stands for (the joining of Courage, Wisdom, and Power) is powerful and has a lot of meaning for me. But on the other hand, I also don't think the Triforce exists in some mystical realm, or that Link is sending me signals to write crappy fanfic and make godawful manips in his name. THAT'S what's totally batshit here."]


Then there's the Hojo.org Public Warning, a site which describes the misdeeds of two women, Jen and Renee, whose occult practices involve the Final Fantasy VII fandom, and who use the fandom as a way to make converts. Some dispute this exposé - I've seen a few comments around alleging that it's all just grudgewank on the part of the site owner, possibly taking inspiration from the Madison website I quoted above. I am certain that it's at least broadly true, because I briefly knew Jen Sagan myself, in early 2003. She was the 'friend' of...an emo nuisance, really, who got me nattering to her on MSN. [I would love to know if the blue person recalls any of this.] She seemed quite pleasant and reasonable, and I'd count her as one of the two most evil people I've ever met.

The site's mostly about allegations of appalling behaviour towards housemates, but fancultishness is never far away; "jen was on about how she had been betrayed, how they were so united...about this time i began to read a few horror stories. jen had made aeris [another member of the cult, real name Angel] sit in a bathtub full of ice cubes and green food colouring as part of her 'cetra training.' it's a wonder the poor girl didn't get hypothermia."

It also quotes something she wrote about herself on LJ once:

Hi, my name is Jen, and I help rehabilitate vampires and assist in spiritual awakenings. I also take care of metaphysical emergencies and, oh yeah, I do exorcisims and banishings too. I'm quite versed in ancient ritual and I often use my own blood to seal spells. I'm not catholic, but I'm not wiccan. God talks to me and tells me that the end of the world is at hand, she says. I'm married to Metatron and, oh yes, I'm the physical embodiment of the angel Uriel. In past lives I've been Integra van Helsing, Sephiroth, and Dilandau Albatou, amongst others. I've been to many theripists, but they all keep telling me I'm okay. Aside from catholic priests wanting to exorcise my house and my husband, things are pretty normal. Unless you count having 20 some kids live in the mental realm that my husband and I share as NOT normal...

[...]
I sing, I do celtic, modern, ritual and sword dancing, and I'm training to be the next soprano sorceress. Famous people I'm related to; Finn MacChumhal (McCool),Morgan LeFaye, and Bram Stoker.

[...]

I have no father, and my mother isn't human. My crazy Uncle Michael works for MI-5, and my Best guy friend was created in a super secret laboratory in Glendale, California, and "born" in the same hospital I was in Pasadena, which leads us both to believe that I might be part of the same "project". My husband, by the way, besides being Metatron, is also a No Life King. Not a nosferatu, no, but an echthros. And a mad scientist. And an Emperor. And a Priest.

(The whole otakukin business is helpfully explained in humanese here).


Dunno that there's any point to make here, other than that there's a slippery slope. There are fans who play with love and dreams, who put their all into it, who let it live inside them, and there are fans who get swallowed by it. And there are religions, which are mostly old and of murky origin, but the stories they tell are supposed to have some different value, morally and religiously, than the stories told in fandom. You get Christian proselytisers handing out copies of St Mark's Gospel, telling you to read the story, because then you'll believe. What's with that?

(My own view is that the Things Out There are unlikely to conform to any shape that comfortably fits in my dear little head, so I may as well grok it however's most appropriate for me. The Tao that can be named is not the Tao, and all that).

what first amendment?

Small realities of the State of Georgia, this. It's nothing much, just $50 here or there, but it is more than a little creepy:

(a) In applying for a marriage license, a man and woman who certify on the application for a marriage license that they have successfully completed a qualifying premarital education program shall not be charged a fee for a marriage license. The premarital education shall include at least six hours of instruction involving marital issues, which may include but not be limited to conflict management, communication skills, financial responsibilities, child and parenting responsibilities, and extended family roles. The premarital education shall be completed within 12 months prior to the application for a marriage license and the couple shall undergo the premarital education together. The premarital education shall be performed by:
(1) A professional counselor, social worker, or marriage and family therapist who is licensed pursuant to Chapter 10A of Title 43;
(2) A psychiatrist who is licensed as a physician pursuant to Chapter 34 of Title 43;
(3) A psychologist who is licensed pursuant to Chapter 39 of Title 43; or
(4) An active member of the clergy when in the course of his or her service as clergy or his or her designee, including retired clergy, provided that a designee is trained and skilled in premarital education.
(b) Each premarital education provider shall furnish each participant who completes the premarital education required by this Code section a certificate of completion."

So, professionals get regulated in nice proper ways, but you can do as you like and call it 'premarital education' so long as you can call yourself 'clergy'.

Um.

THE BEARER OF THIS CARD
IS A GENUINE AND AUTHORIZED
~ POPE ~
So please Treat Him Right
GOOD FOREVER

Genuine and authorized by The HOUSE of APOSTLES of ERIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every man, woman and child on this Earth is a genuine and authorized Pope
Reproduce and distribute these cards freely- POEE Head Temple, San Francisco

A =POPE= is someone who is not under the authority of the authorities.

Methinks the State of Georgia is venturing into chaos in bringing something as subjective and varied as clergy into such an otherwise neatly regulated law. (I wonder how Georgia's qualified psychological professionals feel about that?) As a Discordian Pope, I can't complain about the opportunities for confusion, but there's a Dawkinesque argument that comes to mind; just because something is religious doesn't mean it shouldn't be held to the same standards as non-religious stuff. If clergy, Discordian Popes and otherwise, are going to be doling out this $50-off-your-paperwork thing, shouldn't they be subject to the same certification as everyone else who's doing it? They could easily be untrained and incompetent in such education - not to mention that most clergy (from staid Christians to anarcho-Pagans) have a definition of 'marriage' that is not the same as the civil definition, and that could easily make their advice incompatible with regulation. Your clergy might be saying you shouldn't marry if you've had sex first, or that plural marriage is okay, or that you should only marry if God agrees to it, or that yes it is fine to marry someone of the same sex, or that you mustn't use contraception, or that legal marriage is a meaningless sham, or that you will never get divorced so you mustn't make plans for that eventuality... All matters in which the State of Georgia regulates otherwise, and on which their regulated psychological professionals might be more sure to speak in line with the views of the State.

So how can the role of 'clergy' be enshrined in law like this? How is this not 'respecting an establishment of religion'? Guh?

How To Be A Postfeminist In 5 Easy Steps/many many links

Some time ago now Verte began musing on 'postfeminism': I went back to that now because of the way the word is used in the introduction to this book which I am reading. It's a collection of women's Telegraph obits - fun, quirky read so far, but here's how the two editors (both women) used the word 'postfeminism' in the intro:

As they explored new opportunities, some women went a little over the top in their efforts to prove that they could be as good as their male counterparts. [...] The sex war is only a s mall part of the story. With one or two exceptions (notably the splendid battling feminist Bella Abzug) few of these women had time for 60s-style Women's Lib. [...] Almost to a woman our subjects would have been horrified by today's 'victim culture' and would have taken a dim view of introspection. [...] Nor is there any whingeing about male chauvinism, though most of them faced it to a degree that would be almost unimaginable now.

But this collection is not some worthy litany of women's achievements played out to the accompaniment of shattering glass ceilings. In these post-feminist days we can welcome the fact that freedom for women means not only freedom to be good, brave or clever, but freedom to be mad, bad or dangerous to know - sometimes all three. [...]

None of the women whose lives are chronicled here had their careers mapped out for them. They could not follow their fathers into the family regiment - or inherit a title. No rich uncle would take them to his club to introduce them to his contacts in the City. As a consequence their stories often have a free-wheeling, anarchic quality, full of surprises and sudden changes of direction.

5-step recap there:

1. We're the Telegraph, dummy. It's like printed Fox News.

2. We want women to continue to be special cases of people rather than people, just as things have always been.

3. We are poutywahwah with everyone who has tried to make the world otherwise, and will make disparaging comments about them at every opportunity.

4. We will make vaguely feminist sentiments - freedom to be mad, bad or dangerous to know - but we will use a magic word to make these sentiments safe rather than challenging to the white guy overlords.

5. This word is 'postfeminism'.

This is just one instance of the word, and an instance with a particularly strong dose of wingnut behind it, but these things are starting to pile up. I've seen Tricia Sullivan's works referred to as 'postfeminist' too. They are not. They are feminist. Perhaps 'third-wave' was the adjective the reviewer was looking for. I do not know. Is postfeminism an attempt to pretend feminism (like punk) never happened?

Now, links: The Debate Link: Why is the Only "Good" Civil Rights Leader a Dead One? makes many interesting points that I think run parallel to the whole postfeminism hoohah in one sense; privileged people desperately trying to deny that the civil rights movement was what it was but at the same time having to give brownie points to what it was because if they didn't, they'd look like the assholes they really are.

Irshad Manji explains why Benazir Bhutto sucked all along.

RenegadeEvolution comes bearing win: Creepy Dudes and
Creepy Chicks.

Qaequam on intellectual property. I love this topic, because it's unusual in human history, completely broken and also the backbone of the popular culture industries. One of my favourite instances of it is the Rider-Waite-Smith Copyright FAQ, which should generate much fun in 2012, but that is by the by.

David Wong et al explain in gruesome detail why we should all pretend 2007 never happened. I for one would cheerfully do that.

And, Erin at projectdownload has found an unexpected happy ending. Which is great but it didn't have to be that miraculous and the only reason it is is because a bunch of cruel, violent assholes with pretend respect for human life decided it should be so.

'Sacred', innit?

Mandolin at Alas has brought my attention back to that precious right-wing handwringing that says 'human life is sacred!' (Not). Orson Scott Card's exact words on the subject are:

Bush never backed down. He had compromised as far as he could, without bending his understanding of the principle of the sanctity of human life that civilization depends on.

Stating the obvious yet again:
a) Civilisation depends on no such thing, and frequently relies on the opposite.
b) People on the extreme right say human life is sacred when it supports their politics, and say human life is worthless when it that supports their politics instead.

Example: Project Download, which I came across on the M15M LJ yesterday. Project Download is so fucking ridiculous and tiny that I am still crying tears of frustration every time I even think about it. How much pure hate and cruelty does it take to put someone through this? How can you do that, say it's a-okay to inflict that kind of violence against a person's life, for the want of £750 (and I've had overdrafts bigger than that), and still say 'oh, but human life is sacred?' Of course you don't fucking believe that, you'll just say any old crap that keeps you up and everyone else down.

(And no, I don't care if you think Erin is fake; if human life were sacred, she couldn't possibly be a convincing lie.)

where the heart.

The ABC ladies are poking my head; Kyraninse on how comfort levels are for wet blankets: and V on faith, works, etc. The former reminds me that there is value in going over the things I'm finding hard to go over, harder still to articulate, even if it's only of use to myself; the latter - I could pretend she reminds me that there's no bloody point to writing anyway, but that's not true, the truth is that I agree with everything she said and I got there on a road I don't like, barefoot, but I am like Posy and can learn with my feet.

Speaking of, I made a Sex Pixie:





I believe that wisdom is in the body - wisdom, joy, sadness, truth, there's a physical accompaniment to all of it, and I often find it easier to connect to that than to the rest of it. I get distracted by the abstracts and dream-reals easily; I think that's how the world is, that if you're engaged with one thing you're inevitably drawn to its opposite. A foot on the ground is a head in a cloud, no disjunct.

Verte told me a while ago of a sweet group exercise in which people were asked to point to the body part in which their 'self' resided. Most went to the head; she to her heart; her sparkliness has said such things about hands; my More Pretentiouser Than Thou Pseudo-pagan self would've gestured to the spinal cord, but here in the real world life seems to come from my feet.

And where are my feet, lately? In limbo.

My new US visa arrived by courier on Monday - it is in a giant yellow envelope I am not allowed to open, that will not be opened until I reach the border; it came with an inevitable feeling of carefully treading in Orpheus's footprints. I run circles around my neighbourhood in old, broken shoes; I'm trapped, waiting for January, and ashamed of it. I really am. That shame is why a lot of things are hard to say - it's like navigating around a great pit, always worrying if I'll fall, if I'll be pushed -

I've been wanting to talk about what V said, about neighbours. I could call it something I learned from early-life Christianity - I mean, it's right there in Matthew 25 -

"Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome; naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will answer, "I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me."

- but really, I think I feel that way because I learned it with my feet.

Those of you who've been reading a while will know that my adolescence was needlessly chaotic, that I was never a teenager like other teenagers, that I was sore and stupid about it the whole time - but that wasn't the start of the crazy by any means. It started with a house. The one my parents should've built, but didn't.

They met in London, where the eldest and I were born, but both had grown up in the same general area of the Pennines - I don't know why they moved back there, maybe for family, who died, or out of nostalgia. Maybe anywhere they settled would've been as much of a disaster. It was a quarter-acre plot of land with an old barn on it, in the middle of a village (a village of the 25-houses-1-pub-1-church model, with a river running through it and roads that led to three others like it, though I'm told that many decades ago it had a butcher and a baker). It was meant to be something - house, extension, garden, hearth and home; what it became was shame, stray cats, petty fights over never-enough hot water, a coal fire to huddle by, always a mess, never my space, never happy. Where it worked, it was beautiful. I sometimes made spaces, took the well-lit never-used upstairs living room, cleared it and turned cartwheels there, had a folding table and an inherited dining chair. It got good after midnight, or when I was skipping school, but in the evenings you could hear the television blaring through the thin wood floorboards, hear my father speaking to it as if he were trying to cow some petty demon. It didn't work. The house did not work.

When I whined about The Cement Garden, that was part of why; the physical isolation was a real force in my life back then, almost as real as death itself. The 'garden' was vast, untended, and full of the rubbish of construction - a bit of an adventure to a child, turning offcuts of wood into flimsy treehouses and playing with cats in the long grass - but to a motherless adolescent with a younger child to fail to care for, a household to slipshodly run, a thwarted want to eke out some kind of life in that grey place? Every stone was its weight in shame. Alchemilla molis overran the flower patch - I planted salvias, but the slugs took them within days, and any upkeep my mother had done was lost, though there were still roses. Compassions. I cut their withered heads off when necessary.

I remember walking to the river that Saturday night, taking off my shoes and putting my bare feet in the water, talking to the half-moon, trying to make myself and my life over in response to the crisis in my mind; if I'm back there any time soon, as I sadly think I must be, I am going to do that again.

I remember breaking a toe on the pitch-pine stairs that snaked all around the hallway.

It was too wrecked and shameful for friends - I rarely asked them back. My gamers came, but strange-smelling ruins are cool for PnP. I never felt I could just say 'this is my space, I want to share it with you' to anyone - it wasn't anyone's space, it was a monster. Once I wanted to share my place with a friend badly enough that instead of asking him there, I asked him to my sister's home in London, 250 miles south. (Thus began the unholy triumvirate, a merry thing that violates all your nuclear-family logic, but is another story, and not really mine to tell).

I didn't have many people anyway - I was difficult, angry, had nothing positive to offer but dreams, so there's no one to blame for that. One of the few who was consistently kind and welcoming to me, who noticed when I was sad and such, turned out to be a complete and crazy prick to everyone else in the world, and is still being hurtful to others I knew then, six years later; what am I to make of that, that he terrorised good people who, themselves, wouldn't've given me the time of day?


Did I mention my sister's home is the same one my parents used to have? It's a small place (well, it's dandy for us, even when all three of us are here, but didn't do for parents with three young children), and the lease was controlled, and they made their own house so had no mortgage, and our father talked his company into making use of it sometimes and paying some of the rent - they didn't want to let it go. Now we live here, behind a mountain of unsolicited mail from Foxtons begging us to move the hell out. I'd planned to move in the day after I finished sixth-form; what happened is that a month before that, a rooftop fire destroyed the attic above these four rooms and the burned-out roofspace fell through into two of them.

It was a trauma, especially after all the other living-space issues we'd had, but I confess that I am glad we had that one clean break from the past; I remember standing in the soot and broken tiles, on a treasure hunt a few weeks after the fire, and seeing a shard of that aggravatingly low glass light fitting, the one he was forever banging his head into, and laughing. I'm glad I got to see the sky inside this place, got to know how insubstantial home is. I don't know about the rest of us, but to me that was worth the cost - in fact, the cost was worth the cost, if you get me. Home shunted from place to place during 2003, and somewhere in the middle it slid into the space-between-spaces that swallowed the bulk of that year, but that is a story for another day, or maybe never.


Having a place to live in, to me, means having a place to share. Dignity is an uncluttered floor with a rug on it; a kitchen I can cope with being in; spare blankets for my friends. I've a craving to give and to care and to shelter friends from the cold - and that does not make me a good person by any account, abstract arguments about true altruism aside, because it's too satisfying and it too easily makes up for something I formerly couldn't have. So I give - sure, sometimes I have to come up with dinner for seven on the fly, and I never know where to keep all the duvets, but to be prepared to love, to have such tools and raw materials at hand and to keep a tidy workshop for the craft of loving, is not my gift to you. It's your gift to me. It's proof that I escaped and that I can do better now.

Seven Reasons Why The Campaign Against Climate Change Is Good For A Laugh

[or, Selected Notes from a Mass Meeting, with Panel, held at Friends House on November 8th.]

1. It made consumerism feel like a sort of black magic. At one point in the floor session, John Sauven's reply to a questioner included the words 'We mostly exceed our fair carbon ration even if we don't fly, and I won't embarrass you by asking if you do fly...' Total Heroes moment there, hand gesture and all. Flying, for Christ's sake, what could be more magical than that? We were told, in a variety of different ways, that emissions in the developing world are not increasing and ours are not decreasing, that we're merely outsourcing our own consumption - having the things we use made on the other side of the world, where it will create even more inefficient mess. (The Moonbat helpfully added that we wipe our asses on trees shipped over from Brazil). I own more books and more changes of clothing than any medieval queen, you know? And when Sauven said all advertising is pornography and that industry should be ended...we're dipping back to before economics, back to objects with moral dimensions, back to magic as if we never left.

At the CCC's heart is the belief that this way of living is going to radically change our world, probably destroy vast swathes of it. The government's target is for a 60% cut in emissions by 2030; apparently this target was pegged not by science, but by the CBI - science suggests that to avoid runaway warming we need to cut emissions by 90% as soon as we possibly can.


2. The Moonbat. The Moonbat! He's a lovely voice - even pronounces 'solution' correctly, and vanishingly few people can do that without sounding like an utter twat. I wrote down some of the things he said;

"As an environmentalist I quite like pain. We all thrash ourselves with nettle leaves in the morning before breakfast."

"I don't care very much about trawlermen."

"I was a great supporter of the Stern Report, until I read it."

"Microgeneration requires ambient energy, and people avoid living in places with high ambient energy - the tops of mountains, the middle of the Sahara desert, or several hundred miles offshore..."

"There are only three questions [about stopping climate change] left; if not now, then when? If not here, then where? If not us, then who?"

[as with almost all nicknamage, I call him the Moonbat because I love him, really I do.]


3. Everything they were talking about - about shutting down Drax again, about supergluing people to the Shell HQ, about taking to the streets on December 8th, about building a mass movement, about the failure of the million-strong Stop The War campaign - is directly tied to the meaningless of civic life in the UK. These people, driven people who know their science, who know what has to be done, who care so deeply about the preservation of life and of wellbeing and even of our crazy magic economy - cannot do anything to influence the course of events other than by putting a tick in a box once every five years, and by supergluing themselves to Shell and maybe writing a few letters here and there. Meanwhile, government climate targets are set by the CBI.

This is why we need to move towards direct democracy as soon as we possibly can.

[addendum: a recent Moonbat piece on this very subject.]


4. The repeated allusions to 'total war'. If stopping cimate change were the overriding priority of our society, we would, as happened in the USA right after Pearl Harbour, rapidly turn our entire economy towards that priority. (The Moonbat in particular was confident that we haven't lost this one yet, and he firmly believes that Europe, if Europe so wanted, could be generating all its power from renewable sources within a few years.)

Could we? Would we? That was sixty years ago. That was a world ago. That was back when we actually made things here, back before we substituted real economic growth for the City boom, back when such efforts didn't require renationalisation and imported labour, back when dissent was a different beast. It's really weird, from here in the magic carpet world, to listen to people harking back to long-gone efforts as if it could ever be the same again.


5. The confidence in carbon rationing. It's the only fair way of making cuts, sure. It also wouldn't work, wouldn't last, wouldn't be secure, and would be extremely morally iffy.

There were 600 people in Friends House that night, some there because they cared, some there because it was free and interesting. Given carbon rationing, how would we have 'paid' for the lighting and ventilation? Would the organisers bear the burden, or would all the attendees share in it? How about other public events - bonfires, for instance. And who picks up the tab for your copy of the Metro? These are tiny things, but they add up - would rationing only cover large indiscretions like food miles and flight? Or would it cover everything? If the government builds a new hospital, who covers its power use? Patients, taxpayers, who? For individual consumers, out there going places and buying things, rationing would work. Consider it on a social, community level and it shatters.

We're used enough to chip and pin, right? But there's always the odd granny out there who doesn't get it; people who don't use cards, or don't know their PINs, even some who can't use them due to disabilities. My teenage brother has only just got his first one, and still goes to the bank counter because he's shy of ATMs. Carbon rationing would have to be used by everyone; it would have to be simple enough and secure enough for, at the very least, everyone in Europe to be able to use it, no getouts for disability or incomprehension or unwillingness.

And what happens if someone urgently needs something - a meal, an ambulance, a morning after pill, a ride home - and finds they have no carbon ration left?

And then it has to be secure, and those who calculate the carbon costs must be accurate. I'm not even going to go there.


6. Crowd demographics. I'll tell you a secret; I'm tired of gender. I'm fed up of it, it's exhausting me, I'd like to see it abolished, and I wish I could put it down, but I can't, because it has no intention of putting me or anyone else down, and that's the fault of people like the CCC, and just about everything else I walk into.

There were, we were told, 600 people at the meeting; all but perhaps a dozen were white. I'd hazard that the gender split was dead even. Where that got interesting was when the floor was opened at the end (nb: not like that, though the reference is appropriate) - of those, we'll call it 20 people, who raised their hand to put forward a question, I counted only three women, and only two not-white men.

Even on the far left, political discussion is still all about Mr Special White Guy.

Why? Why the crap do vast numbers of women enter that political space as listeners, and then not even attempt to contribute? And why - even after being challenged about this last year at Conway Hall, by a fantastic black lady from the floor - do the CCC organisers seem oblivious to the whole race/gender thing? They were speaking of building mass movements, of the pressure from the street that had brought social changes in the past - how the heck are they going to get that if they've come up with a way of having meetings that gives access [almost] only to Mr Special White Guy?

No, it's not their fault - it seemed to be like any other white boys' club, with questions taken from men they knew, men with clipboards, men from thinktanks, men of science, men with opinions, men who knew other men. It's interesting how the gender split among the organisers (all white, except the West London rep lady) worked out; there were three male panellists - two campaigners (the CCC head and the Greenpeace head) and a writer - while the compère, the Climate Camp (ie. direct action) head, at least half of the local London organisers, and (as far as I could see) all the people carrying microphones around were women. As if the boys are meant to talk about the big ideas while the girls do all the work. I've heard this one before. It's not the CCC's fault, but it's their problem and they haven't a hope in hell of building any kind of popular movement without fixing things so they have a room that at least looks like London and sounds like London.

(The unbearable whiteness is echoed on the other side of the same coin, in the UK's new religious movements - not the same thing as the green movement, but there's a hefty overlap. I touched on that a little bit here, not that that post is recommended reading, being as long and rambly as it is, but hey.)


7. John Sauven. He's a really special white guy. He even started a sentence with 'The cost purely from an American perspective -' (No, of course he's not American, and I doubt he's ever lived or worked there, he's just making shit up). He also said 'Money isn't a problem - the world is awash with money.' No, really, who the fuck are you and what planet are you from?

A lot of suggested emissions cuts are based on European metropolitan privilege; the Moonbat cheerfully announces that the Sahara gets 15 hours of sunlight a day so we could just go run a 4500-mile DC power line to it and - Maybe he's forgotten that it's not his desert? (I actually doubt it has escaped his mind - more likely he thinks it would enrich the region, because the oil markets have totally proven how that works - but it wasn't something he touched on). Individual cuts also work for us but not them; while we develop ever more fuel-efficient cars, our secondhand gas guzzlers, like so much of our secondhand clothing, get shipped to Africa and sold on to people who've never had cars before, people who really benefit from having cars.

People like John Sauven need reminding that not everyone can be Mr Special White Guy like he is.



I've every intention of continuing to support the CCC, and I'll likely be outside the US Embassy with a placard on December 8th, but they remain in blissful single-issue obliviousness to their place in the world.

Human life isn't sacred.

Somebody had to say it.

I'm not speaking of religious tenets about the status of human life; what I'm talking about is policy. There are no leaders anywhere (well, except just maybe Bhutan) who put human life first when making the rules. Life wasn't sacred when we invaded Iraq. It wasn't sacred when we decided that it's worthwhile to have all these death machines on our streets, either - cars kill 67 people each week in the UK, and 825 each week in the USA. Life isn't sacred when we talk about climate change - zillions of reports on the human cost of the crisis resulted in mere hand-wringing, while the Stern report on the economic cost of inaction was what made climate change a political priority. When the hell do we ever talk about the importance of human life when we're deciding on policy?

Oh. Yeah. Here. (a link I totally stole from here). Why is that, I wonder?

Honestly, there's no need to invoke conspiracy theories there - it just looks like a vicious cycle of silence. Because human life is sacred, celebrating the economic and social boon of free, legal abortion is a supposedly icky thing to do. (All the while, we're meant to cheer on those lovely liberated Iraqi statue-squishers while a million of their compatriots lie dead at their feet. I'm just saying.) Maybe this silence stops people from seeing it in the same way they do road deaths. Or maybe it's because the benefits are bound to the 'ending' of life in a way that's more obvious than - no, no, wait, it's pretty bloody obvious in the case of that stupid war. Or maybe these losses are seen as preventable by other means - which often isn't true. (More to the point, why were you even driving that car? Why didn't you take the goddamn train?)

So as a political position, it's very hard to consistently defend the right-to-life. As a religious view, that's your call, but it's not mine - I don't think life is simply created and destroyed, I don't see human life as being intrinsically above other forms, and I think personhood is of far greater importance than life. (By 'personhood' I really mean presence in the world, physically, socially, intellectually and spiritually; being part of a great structure of things that touch you and relate to you. Everyone engages at their own level, but that of a 24-week fetus is negligible - certainly when compared to that of a newborn baby, in my totally uninformed and liberally-biased view.) Were I to become troubled about the needless killing of persons, abortion would be a long way down the agenda.