#hes becoming more and more christian conservative and its so annoying | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arcticdementor · 3 years

Link

Wokeness has not simply taken over the CIA, as the entire foreign policy establishment has moved in the same direction. A particularly sinister aspect of this shift is that we are seeing a merger between a fanatical new faith and long-standing institutions specializing in manipulating populations.

Spreading democracy is an important part of American foreign policy. While it’s fashionable to brush off concerns with democracy as hypocritical or just a cover for power politics (“look at Saudi Arabia!”), I believe that outside of the Middle East, where pretty much everyone is non-democratic, American foreign policy is driven by ideological goals that aren’t reducible to material interests.

In this worldview, all countries called “democracies” have reached the end of history, while all others are candidates for regime change, if not today then when the time is right. When countries fight back against this, it’s considered aggression on their part. Hillary Clinton believes that Putin interfered against her in the 2016 election because she spoke out against his government as Secretary of State. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s certainly what I would do if I were Putin, and the lady who tried to overthrow me was running for president.

It seems strange that such a concept would drive US foreign policy, given how little Americans themselves agree on what is or isn’t “democratic.” Was Trump casting doubt on the legitimacy of 2020 “undemocratic”? How about when Democrats did the same in 2016? What about gerrymandering? Court packing?

These are silly debates, and I feel sorry for people who have strong opinions on them, which always boil down to “what my side does is democracy, what the other side does isn’t.”

…

Nonetheless, the American government clearly has something in mind when it uses the term, and it often relies on non-governmental institutions (NGOs) as supposedly objective sources of information. One of the most important of these is Freedom House, and it is therefore worth looking at the organization in some depth.

According to its financial report, in the fiscal year that ended in 2019, Freedom House raised $48 million. Of that, $45 million, or 94%, came from the American government. Its current President is Morton Abramowitz, a lifelong American diplomat. The Chair of the Board is Michael Chertoff, who was Secretary of Homeland Security under the second Bush.

Looking at the 12 members of the Executive Board, and just going off their bios on the Freedom House website, it appears that 6 have had jobs for the federal government, with at least one other appearing to have worked as a government contractor.

You might think that an organization that is funded almost completely by the American government, and staffed by former American officials, wouldn’t have much credibility as an “independent non-governmental organization.” Yet it is called an NGO, and regularly cited by the press as an objective authority on which government actions are legitimate.

Much of what is called “civil society” functions this way. The American government then uses the work of “independent” organizations to justify its own policies, as you can see by going to the State Department website and searching for “Freedom House.”

…

Freedom House has represented the American foreign policy establishment as long as it has existed. According to its own website, the organization at its founding in 1941 had among its leaders Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, the Republican who lost to FDR in 1940. So imagine a “non-governmental organization” today being founded by an alliance of Jill Biden and Donald Trump.

After advocating for American entry into World War II, Freedom House supported the Cold War. Although the website mentions these facts, it tends to downplay or ignore its more recent history, which has involved cheerleading for disastrous wars in the Middle East.

…

So it is this organization, run by former American officials and funded by the US government, whose former Chairman was also the director of the CIA and helped lie the country into Iraq, that is the nation’s most important source for deciding who is or isn’t free.

Recently, Freedom House released its annual report on the state of democracy in the world. It would be one thing if the organization simply declared some countries “democracies” and others not. Instead, it gives a number to each country on a scale that goes up to 100, updating the scores on a yearly basis. So in 2020, Ethiopia gets a 24, Switzerland is a 96, and North Korea is a 3. After 20 years of war, the US has managed to get Afghanistan to 27.

Here’s an interactive map where you can find out how well your country is doing.

There’s actually a formula that they use to calculate each score, although it’s not always clear what causes a country to gain or lose points. 40% of the score is determined by how well a country does on “Political Rights,” and 60% on “Civil Rights,” with subsections under each of these headings.

The 2021 report tells us that 2020 saw “the 15th consecutive year of decline in global freedom.” Sounds really bad. But it’s one thing to say, that for example, the US is freer than China, or that the coup in Myanmar was a blow against democracy. It’s quite another to pretend to have a neutral formula that can compare the state of democracy in say Hungary versus France, the US versus Canada, or Syria versus Cuba. But that’s what Freedom House gets tens of millions of dollars a year from the American government to do.

…

In Europe, Freedom House tells us that “Hungary has undergone the biggest decline ever measured in Nations in Transit, plummeting through two categorical boundaries to become a Transitional/Hybrid Regime last year. Poland is still categorized as a Semiconsolidated Democracy.”

That’s a nice coincidence, how the two European countries that have moved in the most conservative policy direction are the ones also becoming more “authoritarian.” Looking in more detail, it appears that Freedom House classifies conservative countries as authoritarian in two ways

1) Portraying things that would otherwise be considered normal politics as “authoritarian”, while ignoring things that are similar or worse when done by non-right wing governments; and

2) Just directly penalizing countries for conservative policies.

…

This map gives the game away.

…

The connection between how many genders a government acknowledges and its level of democracy is never explained. The report also mentions the Polish government’s opposition to abortion and Slovenia reducing funding for its public broadcaster.

Many conservatives in the United States criticize the media and would like to ban abortion, cut funding for NPR, and not have schools teach that gender is a social construct. They may be surprised to learn that they are engaging in “anti-democratic” activities.

To show the kind of hackery at work, here’s the report on Poland for 2020. We are told that the Archbishop of Kraków describes “LGBT as a ‘rainbow plague’ bearing similarities to communism.” So apparently countries are judged based on the wokeness of their clergy, so Poland loses a point in part for that, and appears to get another point deducted for some combination of the government’s positions on birth control, abortion, and gay adoption.

You can really tell that American conservatives annoy Freedom House analysts more than any other people in the world. In the US, not only are conservatives’ views on abortion and gay marriage undemocratic, but so are their positions on organized labor, with Freedom House mentioning a Supreme Court ruling that government employees could not be forced against their will to contribute to public sector unions.

…

Not only does Freedom House portray the behavior of conservative governments in an unflattering light, but it looks past what are much clearer violations of individual liberty and democratic norms when they are committed in the service of left-wing social or political goals.

Sweden, for example, is one of only three countries to receive a perfect score of 100. This is despite having hate speech laws, which have in the past been used to arrest Christian preachers for their interpretation of the Bible. Norway, another “perfect democracy,” in 2020 expanded its hate speech laws to cover gender identity, with punishments of up to three years in prison for violators.

“Whether a country arrests people for speech” seems like it could be a clear criterion an organization interested in democracy can use, but Freedom House prefers a vague points system that allows it to penalize countries for everything it doesn’t like.*

…

As seen above, Freedom House doesn’t mind criticizing the United States; the country after all only gets an 83, making it a not very good democracy. Yet it’s notable what the US doesn’t lose points for: NSA spying programs, and the prosecution of journalists who have brought them to light. Julian Assange is, in the words of Glenn Greenwald, “responsible for breaking more major stories about the actions of top US officials than virtually all US journalists employed in the corporate press combined,” and he’s now facing life in prison. Yet Assange goes unmentioned in the 2020 report, along with Edward Snowden.

On the question “Are there free and independent media?” the US only gets a 3 out of 4, because “Fox News in particular grew unusually close to the Trump administration” and “Trump was harshly critical of the mainstream media throughout his presidency, routinely using inflammatory language to accuse them of bias and mendacity.” The US gets 4/4 on the question “Are individuals free to express their personal views on political or other sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution?” Surveillance programs are mentioned, but here no points are deducted (the US also gets 4/4 on academic freedom).

It’s a strange algorithm that deducts points for criticizing journalists, but not for putting them in jail. It’s the algorithm you’d expect, however, from an organization run by former American government officials.

…

If the US government and the NGOs it relies on define conservatism as undemocratic, we will in the coming years find ourselves having hostile relations with nations that do not threaten American interests and whose only crime is offending the sensibilities of a liberal elite that holds positions that are far from universally accepted within the United States itself.

The potential implications for liberty at home are no less catastrophic. If conservatives are not only wrong, but “undemocratic,” it becomes easier for the other side to justify attempts to silence dissent and take extreme steps to prevent them from coming to power.

The media, when it advocates censorship or government suppression of its enemies, never says that it’s going about silencing dissenting views. Rather, the propaganda it uses involves classifying what the target is saying as “hate,” “disinformation,” or “foreign propaganda” to delegitimize the speech as unworthy of either First Amendment protection or respect from non-government institutions.

…

It’s fine to disagree with many aspects of American conservatism, as I certainly do. And it wouldn’t be correct to say that there is no objective measure of democracy one can use; certainly, some countries pick their leaders through fair elections, and others don’t. But democracy is supposed to involve a respect for various segments of society, and a consideration of their views. A definition of the concept that delegitimizes what large swaths of the population believe about economic and social issues, while overlooking the prosecution of journalists disfavored by American foreign policy elites, is little more than a tool of propaganda and potentially oppression.

Luckily, it’s easier to know what to do about Woke Imperialism than Woke Capital, or Woke Institutions more generally. The national security establishment does not survive by its ability to bring in voluntary donations or make money through selling products and services people want. Freedom House, like many other similar institutions, is almost exclusively dependent on the American taxpayer, despite the NGO label.

Given how much contempt the organization clearly has for a large portion of the public, and the threat to political liberty that can result from identifying democracy with one side of the political spectrum, there is no reason for that support to continue. While cutting it off would certainly be seen as “undemocratic” by Freedom House, it would remain at liberty to continue writing reports at its own expense.

#richard hanania #read the whole thing #freedom house #woke imperialism

2 notes · View notes

folklohre-a · 4 years

Photo

anna hellevik + timeline / recap of series one of lykkeland.

stavanger is in crisis, with its fishing industry slowing down and the oil adventure coming to a halt before it’s even begun as international companies begin to pull out. anna, an ambitious young woman, finds herself in the center of it all.

i. TREASURE HUNT. summer 1969.

jonathan kay, a lawyer for phillips petroleum, is sent to stavanger to sublet their rig, ocean viking, to another company or facilitate a withdrawal deal. anna hellevik, a farmer’s daughter from dirdal, celebrates her engagement to high school sweetheart christian nyman, the heir to the nyman fishing and shipping company, who due to his occupation as a diver on the ocean viking platform is offshore for long periods of time. anna lands a job as politician arne rettedal’s secretary and transcribes his meetings with phillips petroleum’s ed young and jonathan kay. after phillips decides to drill its final block on the ocean viking rather than pull out, christian gets into a car accident with marius torstensen, who sustains injuries he later dies of. christian lies to the police and claims he was sober, thus keeping the accident off his record. soon after, marius’ pregnant daughter toril is forced to marry a local man who has agreed to raise her illegitimate child as his own.

ii. SMOKING BAN. late 1969.

anna’s parents, hardon and oddfrid, wonder if christian and anna are a good match, claiming they’re too different, ��and oddfrid isn’t sure she really loves him. rein, anna’s older brother, is out of work and hopes to get a job on an oil platform. meanwhile, christian is offshore when Phillips Petroleum believe they’ve found oil on the 2/4 block. in a meeting with rettedal, ed and jonathan pretend they haven’t found anything of significance, and name the block ekofisk. christmas is just around the corner, but nyman’s shipping company has to lay off several of its employees, and christian’s father fredrik cuts his own salary by 20% to help the company, which catapults his wife ingrid into a valium induced depressive episode. when christian is flown back to shore in order to help his mother, he tells anna that they’ve imposed a smoking ban on the platform. smart enough to know that this means they must have found something, anna shares this knowledge with rettedal and tries to convince her future father-in-law to enter the oil industry, but her attempt is interrupted by toril, marius’ daughter, going into labour. after the last day of work before christmas, jonathan invites anna to the movies. she declines, explaining she has to get back to the family farm, and he walks her to her bus. on december 23rd 1969, phillips petroleum finally finds oil on the ocean viking platform, with claims it’s the largest underwater oil reservoir ever found.

iii. THE SUMMER HOUSE. spring 1970.

anna is in the midst of wedding planning with ingrid and fredrik at garnodden, the family summer house, but christian himself is a no-show. fredrik is in need of a translator at a meeting with a possible buyer in england and asks anna to accompany him. christian holds a party at his new apartment, a purchase he has kept secret from both his parents and anna, and invites friends and coworkers from the platform, including jonathan. while at the party, christian and anna get into an argument about the family’s financial problems and their different priorities. after christian storms off, a conversation with jonathan makes anna realise that selling garnodden to phillips petroleum would help the nyman family from going into financial ruin. the next day, fredrik’s meeting in england is unsuccessful, but after anna recommends turning their old trawling ships into supply ships for oil companies, fredrik returns to stavanger with a new sense of hope. when anna later tells fredrik that she took jonathan to garnodden so he could survey the plot, he’s disappointed in her, but after yet another unsuccessful meeting with the bank, he decides to follow her advice and sells garnodden to jonathan and phillips petroleum, against his wife and son’s wishes.

iv. SIXTY NINE METRES DOWN. spring / summer 1970.

anna’s role in the sale of garnodden has led to a falling out with both christian and his mother. she hasn’t spoken to either of them in weeks, but after running into fredrik while working for rettedal at the golf club, he forces his son to apologise to her. despite their bickering, they make up. the following week christian is involved in a traumatizing accident on ocean viking in which damon, a close friend and colleague, dies.

v. DIRDAL VALLEY. early 1971.

when phillips petroleum is looking to build a dry dock for the construction of the ekofisk tank, jonathan notices anna’s family farm in dirdal on one of the possible building plans. the land owners are to be given offers by norwegian contractors’ gunnar sandvik later the same day, so jonathan drives anna to her family farm so she can convince her father to take the offer. by the time they get there, hardon has already refused the offer, but after anna lies to her family about the other landowners accepting the offer, her father changes his mind and accepts the offer. after the meeting, anna and gunnar meet for celebratory drinks at esso motor hotel, where a moment between anna and jonathan is interrupted by toril, who now works as a waitress at the hotel. anna spends more time with jonathan, while christian decides to start a diving company of his own with martin, a friend and fellow ocean viking diver. meanwhile, the stavanger city council has decided that the dry dock will be built in jåttåvågen rather than dirdal, and anna’s actions has alienated her family from the rest of the village.

vi. HOPE AND FRAUD. march 1971.

while he struggles with financing his diving company c - max, christian and anna continue getting into arguments over the smallest things. fredrik sells his canning company to hastings, the english company who turned him down the year prior, in order to help christian with his company, but lies about the production rate. anna accompanies rettedal in a meeting with arve johnsen, a labour party politician working on establishing a state owned oil company. back at the office, anna’s female colleagues think she’s beginning to sound like a politician, and jonathan invites her on a road trip the following day. christian offers rein a job with c - max, but when anna returns to the family farm to share the good news, she’s faced with the harsh realities her family is facing in dirdal. rein turns down dhristian’s offer, having been approached by phillips petroleum for a job at the platform. hardon insists anna and christian’s wedding should be held at the family farm, and won’t give her a suitable date for the ceremony. anna then decides to join jonathan on his road trip around stavanger, opening up to him about her struggles of feeling indebted to the nyman family. back at the nyman house, ingrid informs the family that hardon has finally agreed to hold the wedding at the atlantic hotel in stavanger in late june 1972. when the father of toril’s son shows up to talk to toril, christian reacts with jealousy and anna decides to spend the night at the family farm. things have begun to settle in dirdal, and the hellevik family is slowly but surely being included in the village again. being at the family farm makes it clear that deep down anna is unsure about her engagement.

vii. PARTY AT ESSO MOTOR HOTEL. december 1971.

the norwegian state is considering moving the oil operation to bergen, so rettedal asks anna to help him convince the state’s industry committee to choose stavanger as the oil capital of norway. after taking the committee on a tour of the ekofisk tank, jonathan invites anna on yet another road trip the very same night, but she’s busy with work as rettedal is hosting a dinner for the committee. when arve johnsen tells rettedal it’s unlikely the committee will vote for stavanger because it’s such a conservative and religious town, anna is given the responsibility to organise a party at esso motor hotel to show the delegates that stavanger can be fun. after the party, jonathan tells anna he likes her and they spend the night together. they sleep together again the following day, but anna is conflicted. after having dinner with rettedal at esso motor hotel, anna goes home to christian to break off their engagement, but finds herself unable to. she calls jonathan, who expects to hear good news, but instead tells him she doesn’t know how christian would cope if she left him. she tries writing a letter to end the engagement, but can’t find the right words and instead goes back to christian, ending her relationship with jonathan before it’s even begun.

viii. THE OIL CAPITAL. spring / summer 1972.

anna and christian’s wedding is only a few months away, and planning is in full swing but at the wedding tasting, anna finds herself arguing with fredrik over their differing political views, and her distaste for the family’s view on wealth only grows. the next day, jonathan and ed young have a meeting with rettedal which anna transcribes. after the meeting, jonathan, who still has feelings for anna, asks her to go for a drive but she refuses. she rushes home to christian, but is left annoyed at his drinking habits. jonathan flies back to bartlesville. meanwhile, on june 14th, the parliament votes on the establishment of a state owned oil company and the location of norway’s oil capital. stavanger wins and is officially made the oil capital, and the parliament votes to establish a state owned oil company, which later becomes statoil. jonathan is offered a senior position at the phillips headquarters in bartlesville. later the same day, anna and christian’s parents are finalizing seating arrangements for the wedding reception when anna finally breaks down. a conversation with fredrik leads her to finally admit she doesn’t love christian anymore, and she ends the engagement. she then applies for a bachelor in economics at nhh in bergen. in august, jonathan turns down the senior position in bartlesville and returns to stavanger, finding anna just as she’s about to move to bergen. the two reunite and decide to enter a long distance relationship while she studies.

#• 𝙰𝙽𝙽𝙰 : it’s funny how everything always works out for them.#study –– re: anna.#long post /#this genuinely took me two weeks because my attention span is so short rn but i finished it!!!!#i doubt anyone will ever read this but... here it is #i did do it for myself too though. i love timelines <3 #AND I LOVE ANNA. if that wasn't already clear.#the fact that in reality the events of ep 5 takes place after ep 6 is MESSING WITH MY BRAIN though. i understand why they decided to swap #it around (wrapping up the ekofisk tank storyline so they could focus solely on the statoil/oil capital storyline for the last three eps)#but as someone trying to make a cohesive timeline... it is literal hell.

2 notes · View notes

reeree1500 · 5 years

Text

The Return- Part 2

Okay y'all so here is part 2 of the Return Series. In this one I decided to give you guys a little of what is going through Bjorn’s head upon meeting (y/n) for the first time in 6 years. And a little side of him that we don't really get to see very often. Ivar s introduced, but nothing really happens yet. Hope you guys like itttt :) Lemme know if y'all wanna be tagged too:)

Part 1 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 part 8 part 9 Part 10

Taglist : @yanii-the-hippie @oceans-daughter-3 @peaceisadirtyword @laketaj24

Disclaimer: My sucky ass writing; and thank God for my mutuals without y'all Id be going nuts right now. Especially @yanii-the-hippie :)

Bjorn POV

I can't find the words to describe how I'm feeling in this moment. My sister who I've thought was dead for the last 6 years is actually alive... Looking at her stunned face that most probably mirrors mine, I can’t help, but be a pile of different emotions that I cant grasp onto, all except one.

Disappointment in myself. Not only because I wasn't there for her when she needed me, but because I missed all the signs of whatever she had been going through. For years I’ve thought about what it would be like to see her again and asked myself what if she had never left? What could have become of us and our family? What could I have done differently...

I reach down to help her up and all I can do is look into her eyes, looking for some sign that this is just Loki playing around with me. “(Y/N), It really is you.” In a matter of milliseconds, I pull her towards my chest and hug her as if she would disappear again if I let go. “I’ve missed you so much... My whole world came crashing down when you left. It was like losing apart of myself all over again. Just like when Gyda died.” I managed to murmur against her ear through the tears that were threatening to spill.

A muffled I’m sorry comes out from her lips. Thats when I realize that we’re both crying in the middle of the street and people are starting to form a crowd around us. “Let’s go to my cabin, you have a lot of explaining to do (y/n) Lothbrok.” Grasping both (y/n) and her friends hands, I push past the people in the marketplace making my way through the crowds gathering for the feast later tonight. “You know sister, you’ve always had impeccable timing for things. However, coming back from the dead 6 years after we had all thought you were gone, is some next level shit.” (I’ve never been a person to take things really seriously, so I always find myself trying make a joke of things as my coping mechanism. Sometimes I’ll just say things in the worst moments because I cant handle it. This would certainly be one of those times.)

“To be honest with you Bjorn, Im not sure if I did the right thing by coming back...” (Y/N) whispers as we reach the cabin steps. At that moment something came over me and I snapped. But before I got the chance to yell at her, I pushed them both inside and shut the door behind me. With my head against the door and my back turned to them both I couldn't contain my anger any longer. “Why would you say that (Y/N), don't you know the hurt and anger that not only mother and father suffered, but that I did too when you left!” “You didn't have to leave! You had me! Im your brother, for Odin’s sake. My job was to protect you!” at this point I could careless if she saw me cry. Too much had happened in my life, and with (y/n) I could always be myself and let go. Sure I tortured her when we were little, but at the end of the day she's still the only sister I have left, and most of all my rock.

“Bjorn, I never meant to hurt any of you. But, I was in danger. And before you interrupt me and say that you could've protected me. You couldn't have. This was bigger than you and father.” she said whilst wrapping her arms around my torso. Once we both calm down and I properly introduce myself to her friend Mira, (y/n) holds my head in both hands and looks into my eyes. “I came to find answers brother, and I promise you that this time no one will separate us or our family. In that, you have my word.”

“Now let me tell you what truly happened that night 6 years ago...”

-------------------------------

Your POV

After telling Bjorn all that occurred that night and seeing him breakdown in front of me multiple times, I knew that whatever this secret was, it wasn't hurting only me, but those I cared about the most. Bjorn had told me that things had changed drastically after I left. Especially with mother and father. Our once happy family that lived on that beautiful farm, was now separated. I had to figure things out, not only will I stay to find the truth about what happened that night, but I will get my family back together.

-------------------------------

As the sun went down, the laughter and joyous screams of the people got louder. Through the windows in my brothers cabin I could see a crowd gathering outside the great hall. From what Bjorn told me, father was king of Kattegat and he had been even before I was born, making me a princess here too. I told Bjorn where I had gone to, and how I stayed with Uncle Rollo for the last couple of years. In Frankia, I’m a princess because Uncle Rollo deemed it so. He and Gisela have yet to produce an heir, so my uncle decided to name me as his heir till he was able to produce one, which then in turn I will hand over my title, but still keep some of the land.

“The feast is just about to start and as prince and hopefully next in line to the throne, I have to make an appearance.” Bjorn says as he sits down by the table drinking some ale. “Bjorn, you're the only male heir to our family, of course you’ll be next in line.” I say as I chug back some of it back. “Well (y/n), you see...” Before he could finish his sentence the sound of a horn caught our attention. “What’s the horn for?” Mira asks from where she sits next to the fireplace. “Its to let the people of Kattegat know that tonight we feast and tomorrow were off to raid.” Bjorn says while getting up from his seat. “Its also an indication that we all need to be there. Now.”

“Bjorn, Im not even properly dressed for a feast for God’s sake.” I tell him frantically, but in reality I just don't feel like I can face my father after all this time. “(Y/n), I’m your brother. I know that you're just scared, of what will happen. But you're here to find the truth, and I will help you every step of the way, but you have to find the courage to face this. Okay?” Bjorn says while grasping both of my hands in his. “That still doesn't solve the issue that we both don't have anything to wear for the feast. My lord.” Mira murmurs from beside me. “Mira, Bjorn is fine, Im not really into formalities. And as for the dresses here I have some. Don't ask I’ll explain later.”

------------------------------------

“Now Bjorn, Im not gonna ask you now why you have these dresses laying around in your home, but I will later.” I say as we make our way through the crowds and into a small space in the corner of the great hall. “You know sister, one thing I haven't missed about you is your sassiness and how annoying you could be.” Bjorn says as I roll my eyes at him. “You're just mad you're little friend Mira couldn't be here, cuz she said they were ‘too revealing’, whatever that means.” Its true, Mira had felt uncomfortable to be surrounded by men whilst wearing that thin piece of cloth that is considered a dress here. Christians are more conservative, I on the other hand don't mind wearing the dresses as I grew up around the culture here so to me they don't seem too revealing.

“You cant blame the girl, she's Christian.” I whisper back to him. “So are you and you don't have a problem.” “Because brother, Im a viking too.” at that Bjorn scoffs. Before Im able to say something to him a loud echo can be heard in the great hall. Bjorn moves us a little closer so we are able to see what's happening, but without being noticed. Through the doors appear 4 young men. You can tell that these men must be of some importance as the room goes silent. In turn a lady with kohl around her eyes comes next and sits on the one of the chairs in the middle. The people in the hall resume their drinking and games. It is then when I notice my dear brother walking away from me and towards the 4 young men. “Bjorn, what are you doing, you idiot!” I say to him whilst trying to get to where he is.

“Its okay, just come here. I have some people you should meet.” he says all but too casually. “Bjorn, no. You know what Im leaving.” As I turn to leave Bjorn’s hand shoot out to grasp onto mine and pull me towards the table with the young men. “Well if it isn't Bjorn Ironside. To what do we owe this unpleasant surprise.” the young and dark haired one says. “Its really unpleasant to see you too Ivar.” In this moment I notice a darkness wash over this mans face, expecting him to stand up and throw something I take a step back and thats when I noticed the metal that has his leg. This man is a cripple. But, something tells me that he is someone to look out for. Whether it be out of fear or intrigue I do not know.

“Now, now Ivar calm yourself. Bjorn obviously has some company and it would be rude to not introduce ourselves.” This one seems to be very confident in himself. If it weren't for the chicken in his hand I might've actually thought that he was cute. “Im Hvitserk, pleasure to meet you....” “(y/n), it’s a pleasure to meet you as well.”

“I never pegged you for one to like Christian girls Bjorn?” says Hvitserk. “ Hn... whatever.” As Bjorn continues his conversation with Hvitserk, I introduce myself to Ubbe, who looks really similar to Bjorn in some ways. And Sigurd, he seems shy. As soon as he said hello, just as quick he got up and left. I guess he's not one to party. As I find myself in conversation with Ubbe, I cant seem to shake the feeling that Im being stared at. And Im right, Ivar who seems to be the youngest of them all, keeps staring at me. Theres no emotion in his face, so it feels as if he is studying my every move. “So, Bjorn how was the Mediterranean?” the woman to the right of Ubbe says. “It was fine. No need to pretend you actually care.” Bjorn says whilst glaring holes through her.

“Bjorn!! Don't be rude, she's just asking you a question.” I say glaring back at him. “If you knew who she was, you wouldn't be so quick to defend her (y/n).” And with that Bjorn gets up and just as Im about to take a bite from the freshly baked bread he grabs my arm and rushes me across the room. In the midst of telling Bjorn off for his rude behaviour. The room goes quiet. We both turn to see what the cause of the stillness was. And there he was. My father, Ragnar Lothbrok, entering the room with what seemed to be two friends or allies of his. I turn my gaze to the ground as to not make eye contact. But as God would have it, the first person he sees would be my brother.

“Well, it seems my son has returned.” at that the room bursts with loud chanting appreciating that Bjorn has come home safe. “And with whom might I ask.” In that moment I felt as if I could not breathe, and I couldn't haven't been more grateful to the fact that my brother was with me. Bjorn leaned down and whispered. “All will be alright, Im here for you. I always have been and I always will be. No matter what.”

In that moment, staring into the reassuring eyes of my brother. I turn to face the man who had been my strength and biggest support throughout my life. The jug of ale in my fathers hand drops. At that, the room stills. And it feels as if all eyes are now on us. His name comes out from my lips in a barely audible tone. “Papa...” at that the tears we were both holding fall down our faces. My father rushes from the other side of the room to where I’m standing and embraces me. “How is this possible, you were taken from me. I thought I lost you like I did your sister.” My father pulls back from the embrace to study my face just like Bjorn had. “Bjorn, tell me this isn't a dream, that she's really come back to us.” “ it's not a dream father, she's really back.”

My father wipes my tears away and pulls me to the centre of the room. “People of Kattegat, 6 years ago, I lost my youngest child. But, now by the grace of Odin and Freyja, she has been brought back to me. Tonight we not only celebrate the start of Spring and our raids. But, the fact that my children have been brought back to me safe! Skal!” at that everyone’s horns are raised.

In this moment my eyes lock with Ivar’s and in that instant I knew that the road ahead would be long. It would hold many obstacles, but somehow I had a feeling he would make them go away....

#vikings #vikings ivar #ivar lothbrok #ivar's heathen army #ivar x reader #bjorn lothbrok #hvitserk #hvitserk x reader #ragnar x lagertha #ragnarsdottir #ragnar lothbrok #vikings fandom #vikings fanfiction #vikings history channel #ask to tag

85 notes · View notes

xxladylovexx · 5 years

Link

What cheeses me off is, if you want to be free, if you want to live “off grid” without government, if you want to grow your own food and barter hens and nanny goats for potatoes and butter, go do it. What’s stopping you? It’s a big world and easy to get lost in. Sure, there’s never any guarantee that you’ll be safe from the long arm of the state—Randy Weaver found that out the hard way when he and his wife made the logical decision to drop out of society rather than try to change it to suit their beliefs—but still, living off grid (which I’ve done several times in my life) is way easier than getting 300 million people to agree in unison, “We’re going to dismantle government and live as medieval farmers and tradesmen.”

The anti-government ideologues act like they can’t go and “be free” until they’ve persuaded the rest of us to follow suit. Essentially, they’ve made their freedom quest dependent upon me coming along for the ride, even though it’s a trip they could easily take solo.

And that, right there, is why trannies annoy the hell out of me. A tranny is someone who claims, “I was ‘assigned’ the wrong gender at birth, and I need to be the real me.” Okay, fine. Go be whatever the hell you want to be! Go be a chick with a dick, or a man with a cooter. It’s absolutely none of my business how any adult decides to express him/her/itself sexually. But the thing is, these days trannies are not content to just go be trannies; they insist that we become accomplices to their fantasy. We have to pretend to see what they see. We have to use pronouns that we know are misapplied. We have to allow dudes with dirlywangers to shower, change, and go to the bathroom alongside our daughters. We have to foot the bill for sex change surgeries. To even suggest that sex change operations are elective and not a “medical necessity” is to challenge the tranny illusion. This is at the heart of the controversy surrounding President Trump’s announcement that trans folk will no longer be allowed to serve in the military. Trannies, their leftist allies, and “moderate Republicans” think soldiers are as entitled to state-funded sex change operations as they are to first aid on the battlefront.

In Sweden, the trans lobby has been able to bully the medical establishment into changing the official term for sex change (or sex reassignment) surgery. The new authorized term is “könskorrigering”—“gender correction.” A perfectly healthy organ (a penis) is now seen as a congenital defect to be surgically lopped off, no different from when doctors are forced to remove the left atrial appendage to save the life of someone with a congenital heart defect.

“Sorry, but you can’t make your mental health dependent on everyone else seeing you as you see yourself.”

Tranny-mania is an assault on language, common sense, and science. It’s also an assault on the very concept of aesthetics, and the right of every human being to have sexual preferences (an irony, considering that queer activism used to be all about championing the individual’s right to sexual preferences). Straight men are now told that it’s “transphobic” to prefer their women penis-free. The tranny argument is “If I think I’m a woman, you need to see me as one, even if I have a wiener.” Straight men are no longer allowed to find penises sexually unattractive, because trans activism is about changing human nature itself. It’s nothing more than the newest iteration of the New Soviet Man, that 20th-century fallacy in which communist ideologues claimed that with enough reeducation and coercion, mankind could overcome every natural instinct the state considered counterrevolutionary. Well, New Soviet Man is back, now wearing a skirt and fighting for trans acceptance rather than an end to self-interest and private property.

I have absolutely nothing against trannies. Honestly, there’s no “phobia” here. What I don’t like is the compulsion, the insistence that I play along. With the gay marriage issue, wherever you stand on it, the fact is it really doesn’t affect non-gays. Oh sure, Christian conservatives and “traditionalists” will make the “slippery slope” argument (“If you allow gays to wed, it might not impact your life immediately, but over time it will erode the moral fabric of our nation and one day a satanist cannibal will eat your sister”), and there have indeed been individual cases of compulsion involving wedding cakes, but still, it’s just a fact: Two men in Miami tying the knot has absolutely zero bearing on my life or yours. What’s odious about the tranny agenda is that it’s all about affecting non-trannies—you, me, your neighbor, your child, your unborn child, hell, even your pets. The tranny agenda is nothing but intrusiveness.

Why do trans folk so obsessively insist that the rest of us have to feed their fantasy? Recently, the LGBT community successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association into changing how it refers to trans folk in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Previously, trannies were said to have gender identity disorder. In 2012, “disorder” was dropped in favor of “dysphoria.” This is not a small difference. Gender identity disorder made clear that trans people have a condition. Gender dysphoria (GD) merely indicates that they suffer discontent. The change was primarily made in order to separate trannies from people with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). People with BDD see themselves as fat even though they’re skinny, or they see their face as hideous when in fact it’s fine. They may see a particular limb, like an arm or a hand, as disfigured or “alien,” and they’ll either hide the limb or try to remove it.

Regarding the latter, medical science considers it unethical to assist in the removal of a healthy limb or organ if the patient has BDD. By removing the “disorder” from transgenderism, by defining it by the symptom (dysphoria) rather than the cause (a disorder), the APA has essentially decided to normalize a mental illness via creative wordplay (people with BDD experience dysphoria as well, but that doesn’t change the fact that they also have a disorder). In attempting to explain the difference between body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria, trans activist Austen Hartke states, “Body dysmorphia causes someone to believe their body is a certain way, while gender dysphoria is a sense that the body should be a different way.” But that’s simply not true. People with BDD also believe that their body should be a different way (skinnier, for example, or minus an offending hand or arm). At the core, people with BDD and GD are in the same boat: They view themselves in a way the rest of us don’t (a skinny person saying, “I’m so fat,” a man saying, “I’m a woman”).

To be clear, if BDD and GD are both disorders (an opinion still held by many experts in the fields of science and pediatrics), BDD is much more severe than GD. Starving yourself to death because you think you’re too fat is much worse than wanting to live like a member of the opposite sex. But having the freedom to live like the opposite sex is never enough; trannies continue to suffer from dysphoria because, subconsciously, they know they aren’t the thing they’re trying to be, and they know that the rest of us see that. Hypnotherapy is often used to treat people with body dysmorphic disorder. And whether they admit it or not, people with gender dysphoria are essentially forcing us to use hypnotherapy on them. We, the non-trannies, are expected to reinforce their false reality by soothing them with a steady stream of positive reinforcement. We’re expected to shower them with false pronouns, undress next to them and pretend that we don’t see genitalia that obviously belongs in the other locker room, and rewrite science books because the old ones hurt their feelings. Trannies want to turn the entire world into one huge hypnotherapy session for their benefit, a world in which we’re reluctantly cast as the therapists.

#mental illness #BPD #body dysmorphia #dysmorphic #transgender #trans-identified #identity politics #sexism #gender dysphoria #therapy #bruce jenner #bruce gender #kaitlyn jenner #kim kardashian #biology

3 notes · View notes

awdawdawfaef · 3 years

Text

Can the child possibly believe in what his Christian parents have told him

She also worked on developing a better outside shot. “Save me from myself. A similar spirit of prayer must precede the coming of the divine Spirit, to effect a revolution so great as that at which we aim. Scored eight game tying or game winning goals . Christian father 'murdered his teenage daughter, 17, by. It was Jaime, he thought, despairing. The original screenplay "Nottingham" by Cyrus Voris and Ethan Reiff was about a "Noble Sheriff" and a "Shady Robin Hood in a love triangle with Maid Marian. The soldiers of the camara sony cybershot dsc w810 garrison—only four had survived the attack, the old serjeant and three boys—laid their swords at his feet. As a result, the twin turbo 240PS Sd4 Ingenium four cylinder diesel engine, for example, manages combined cycle fuel economy of 43.5mpg and CO2 emissions of 171g/km. Morkel runs hot and cold, Tahir has a decent record and Philander has struggled on the Aussie pitches. Don point de croix chalet Perrior of Medicine Hat passed away on Monday, December 8th, 2014 at the age of 67 years. Can the child possibly believe in what his Christian parents have told him, when he sees this? We have spoken now of only the common advertisements of the paper; but suppose the child to live in some districts of the country, and advertisements of a still more degrading character meet his eye. ? Choose a venue that can support your guest list. Then air force I heard p90 someone outside shouting injured, ran uggs outlet out to rescue the injured. Singer Charli XCX is 24. But everything about adidas mariposas Dubai is exaggerated. But Big 5 Sporting Goods which has long been one of the cheapest options for consumers is holding its own in a world dominated by ever changing consumer tastes and increased online spending.El Segundo based Big 5 Sporting Corp. Trouble comes in the form of Tyler Harne (Luke Kleintank), Kyle's childhood buddy and fellow Marine, back from Afghanistan. And not just one hundred of them. With Halifax by far the largest of the Atlantic communities, attention was paid to a $6 million bequest from late Halifax resident Abe Leventhal to assist in building a Jewish community centre that might, or might not, contain sanctuaries for the existing Orthodox and Conservative synagogues in the city. During the group) and recorded on a flashcard. It will likely first be used on space rockets that Boeing plans to build in about five years, and it should make its way into commercial planes about five years after that, said Carter. We have a link to all the rules for both texas and new mexico. No hope of production, more's the shame.. The factory made clothes for some well known fashion brands. 23, 2015. Therefore the components were heavily designed for ease of manufacturability. Kingslayer, I’ll answer to that one zara pantalon chinoas well. With no social media to look at or emails to check, I listened to the crickets (and the snoring campers in their tent next to me), until morning light.. Sandstorm conditions are also

pantofi sport tip soseta dama

ideal for rain storms, in which case flash flooding becomes a threat. OK, I'm not sure what that would feel like, but it sounds better than I usually feel. * * * If you believe that slave-holding is necessarily zara pantalon chino sinful, come out with the abolitionists, and honestly say so. I would sit beside her sometimes, watching her. She actually seemed to care about how the girls' dresses fit. 8, 1940. The girls’ lodging-room was occupied at night by about nike pegasus 34 hombre sprinter twenty or thirty women, who all slept on the bare floor, cizme vara cu tocwith only a blanket each. By persuading her to help him bring about Alyosha’s marriage with her stepdaughter, the prince

sandisk mp3 mode d emploi

had good reasons for getting out of marriage with the countess, which she really had urged upon him. Or China, and regionally as well in Southeast Asia and Europe. The writer would not think of controverting the truth of these anecdotes. With every sloshing step the water cooled. It has been reported that many people who visit the basement area, have been pinned up against the wall by an unknown force!!. Guests are welcome to place messages but must give a valid e mail address.. The camera and gown are among donated items to be auctioned by the guild at a dinner to benefit their various charities. They hung upon the walls, before her and behind her, high and low, everywhere she looked, everywhere she turned. That must have been why Mance got the notion to tell you it were Joramun’s. If the weather is nice, plan an outside activity with them. A State Fire Marshall will be investigating the cause of the fire on Thursday.The Luton family is currently staying with relatives until other arrangements can be made, however the family is in need of clothing and other donations. Could I have come here simply to gaze at this old man? I was annoyed. But her short acquaintance with the king at Deepwood Motte convinced her that he would have been no more fond of her in a gown. It sold a variety of accessories. Adidas (Adidas) brand, in 1920, the predecessor of Germany Herzogenaurach (Herzogenaurach) began producing footwear. While they do dip into the pastoral on occasion (especially on "Honey," a clever rewrite of the Stones' "Factory Girl,") mostly it's assault. Once, not long ago, he had ridden on her shoulder, his tail coiled round her arm. His crown had come from her, could he hold it in her absence? He wanted Drogon dead. “If I forbid them to carve stone or lay bricks, the chandlers, the weavers, and the goldsmiths will soon be at my gates asking that they be excluded from those trades as well.” She considered a moment. We're doing what we're supposed to be doing," Becker said. If you get hooked on the sport you can progress to artificial baits. It also

brassiere garcon

helped Apple sell the new systems. Does a minister raise his voice in favor of the slave?—Immediately, with a whoop and hurra, some editor starts the mob on him, as an abolitionist. There has never been conclusive evidence on the field turf vs. Longwater Pyke and Tom Tidewood chucked it over the rail, another offering to the Drowned God.. From all we can learn, the only evidence relied on by the prosecution was that white man employed by the Castlemans. It would be your wedding gift to Hizdahr and to your loving people, a sign that you had embraced the ancient ways and customs of Meereen.”. Sometimes I noticed an anxious look in her face; she began to question me, and tried to find out why I was sad, what was in my mind. For customers who need more than "extreme" speeds, Comcast is also launching the previously announced Gigabit Pro service, which delivers 2 Gbps upload and download speeds. Elijah P. Worse, he was bred and trained to give orders, not to take them. The standards for tourist destinations are firmly in place, says Troubetzkoy, naming Poplar Forest, Point of Honor and the Lynchburg museum system, the last two of which are owned by the city. Jaime Rodriguez, who faces an evidentiary hearing Tuesday, Jan. Even things like action movies and booze cause women's testosterone levels to spike, so maybe we should try Batman Begins and a vodka martini before giving up and reaching for the Hershey's..

0 notes

xparrot · 6 years

Text

today in fanning

(crossposted from dreamwidth)

So we recently watched the FOX show Lucifer. And now I want there to be more of a fandom for it, because it tickles me in just that fannish way. In some ways it's a hard sell because it's not exactly a good show; it's tropey and cliche and even at its best, it's a cautiously shallow dive into some deep waters. Though based on the Lucifer of Gaiman's The Sandman and other DC comics, those horror/philosophy stories are a very loose antecedent; the show is a lightweight police procedural -- albeit with supernatural elements, but those arcs are usually the B-plot to the murder of the week. It follows that established genre of the main het pair of a by-the-books (usually female) cop teamed up with a wacky (usually male) "civilian consultant" with a mysteriously vital skillset, and plays it straight, UST and all. The civilian consultant in this case is the fallen angel Lucifer, recently retired from Hell and looking for entertainment and purpose on Earth by helping solve crimes. He owns a night club and goes to therapy (one of my favorite parts of the show, poor Dr. Linda) and hides his divine nature under the most impenetrable cover, which is that he tells anyone who asks that his legal name is Lucifer Morningstar, you know, Satan, and the reason that identity only goes back five years is because that's when he came up from Hell, which he used to rule, because he is in fact the Devil, and also he would appreciate it if people would stop blaming him for all their sins. And yes, those scars on his back are from when he cut off his wings. And no, he is not a method actor. Really. The procedural cases are run of the mill and the angelic mythology isn't anything too original -- but it's developed nicely, and the cast is beautiful and has fabulous chemistry. It's one of those shows that just feels like everyone has fun making it together. I don't have any OTPs in particular, but most combos of the characters are entertaining. I lowkey ship pretty much any relationship that isn't blood-family (and those platonic relationships I naturally adore). And Lucifer himself is pure fannish catnip for a certain type of fan, that is, if you have a thing for the devil-may-care lunatics and wildly inappropriate hedonists with darker backstories who secretly care more deeply than they ever should, and are slowly realizing they want and want to be more, and occasionally shatter into a glorious mess of angst...yeah, he pushes my buttons hard. The star Tom Ellis does a great job with the part; he deftly walks the line between obnoxious and charming, projecting confidence, glee, and menace without losing comedic lightness. He is supposed to be supernaturally attractive and he sells it well -- he's not the hottest guy on TV (which isn't to say he's any trouble to look at, and the directors -- many women among them -- know how to shoot those dark eyes and fitted suits to excellent advantage) but he carries himself like he knows he's irresistible, which is what counts. And he is so very good at maniacally smirking at people like he's about three seconds away from either going down on them or going for their throat. He's also great at being completely emotionally devastated. I can point to the exact scene I really fell for the character and with him the show; it's partway through second season and I would be embarrassed by how cliche a fangirl I am, except that unabashed fanning like this is really just fun. The Lucifer show is such a marvelously old-school fan experience for me, a so-so but cute show with a fun cast and a few shining moments of fannish delight. (It's old-school in less fortunate ways as well -- especially first season is problematic, with obvious and oblivious racism, sexism, consent issues, etc. That improves, but other issues remain. Throughout the show it all but ignores other faiths -- like Supernatural, it's not exactly Christian in that Christianity or Christ is never name-checked; but Christian mythology is all that's explored (I actually prefer no mention to badly handled dismissal or appropriation, but ymmv.) Like most procedurals, it tends to tilt more conservative than I'm really comfortable with, in the politics of crime and also socially -- like, Lucifer is canonically bi/pansexual, but we see him with way more women than men, while the demoness Mazikeen we also see being sexy with more women than men.) The first season is on the slow side -- actually it feels bizarrely old-fashioned; without contextual clues I swear I'd have mistaken it for late-90s TV, down to how it's shot. The second season is when the show hits its stride -- not only does it have a stronger story arc, but it expands the cast (including adding the gorgeous and hilarious Tricia Helfer; with her and another, the main cast is more female than male) and develops all the character relationships, mixing and matching in unexpected ways and giving everyone a chance to shine, such that a lot of chars who start out annoying end up becoming awesome. Maze especially is by-the-numbers seductive torturer in season 1; in season 2 she starts making friends and the actress gets a chance to show her range, particularly her comic side. Also Dan, who starts out as the stereotypical 'douchey cop still hung up on his ex-wife' but moves into a more solid supportive friendship with Chloe (exes who have genuinely moved on romantically but are still friends/family is so one of my kinks) -- and also ends up in ridiculous situations with Lucifer, which I suspect is because the actors play off each other so well they started writing to it. The third season (which the show is finishing up now) has been extremely erratic; the plot arc isn't as directed as 2nd season's, and the characters are regressed somewhat. But it's had some good stuff, too, enough that I'm hoping it gets renewed. And meanwhile I'm looking for fic, which is pretty slim pickings -- it's a mid-sized fandom, but the focus is nearly all on the main het pairing of Lucifer and his detective partner Chloe, and while I don't mind the ship, it's one of the less interesting aspects of the show to me. As is my wont, I mostly want gen team-Lucifer stories. (That or Lucifer/Dan stories, because it would be too funny. There needs to be an episode that Lucifer and Dan wake up naked in bed and handcuffed together and have to solve a murder together by figuring out what happened to them, which might be easier if Lucifer would stop suggesting that they should have sex (again?) to see if it sparks any memories...)

#my post #lucifer #squee #brought this over from my dw/lj #for a proper tumblr post I know it should have gifs #but I'm old school!#also haven't gone to the Lucifer tag and no one I know posts about this show at all #it must have a tumblr fandom somewhere #should go looking

26 notes · View notes

folklohre · 3 years

Photo

𝙰𝙽𝙽𝙰 𝙷𝙴𝙻𝙻𝙴𝚅𝙸𝙺 + TIMELINE / RECAP OF LYKKELAND SERIES ONE.

1 9 6 9. stavanger is in crisis, with its fishing industry slowing down and the oil adventure coming to a halt before it’s even begun as international companies begin to pull out. anna, an ambitious young woman, finds herself in the center of it all.

→ TREASURE HUNT , summer 1969.

jonathan kay, a lawyer for phillips petroleum, is sent to stavanger to sublet their rig, ocean viking, to another company or facilitate a withdrawal deal. anna hellevik, a farmer’s daughter from dirdal, celebrates her engagement to high school sweetheart christian nyman, the heir to the nyman fishing and shipping company. christian is a diver on the ocean viking platform and is therefore offshore for long periods of time. anna lands a job as politician arne rettedal’s secretary and transcribes his meetings with phillips petroleum’s ed young and jonathan kay. after phillips decides to drill its final block on the ocean viking rather than pull out, christian gets into a car accident with marius torstensen, who sustains injuries he later dies of. christian lies to the police and claims he was sober, thus keeping the accident off his record. soon after, marius’ pregnant daughter toril torstensen is forced to marry a local man who has agreed to raise her illegitimate child as his own.

→ SMOKING BAN , late 1969.

anna’s parents, hardon and oddfrid, wonder if christian and anna are a good match, claiming they’re too different, and oddfrid isn’t sure she really loves him. rein, anna’s older brother, is out of work and hopes to get a job on an oil platform. meanwhile, christian is offshore when phillips petroleum believe they’ve found oil on the 2/4 block. in a meeting with rettedal, ed and jonathan pretend they haven’t found anything of significance, and name the block ekofisk. christmas is just around the corner, but nyman’s shipping company has to lay off several of its employees, and christian’s father fredrik nyman cuts his own salary by 20% to help the company, which catapults his wife ingrid into a valium induced depressive episode. when christian is flown back to shore in order to help his mother, he tells anna that they’ve imposed a smoking ban on the platform. smart enough to know that this means they must have found something, anna shares this knowledge with rettedal and tries to convince her future father-in-law to enter the oil industry, but her attempt is interrupted as toril goes into labour while at work. after the last day of work before christmas, jonathan invites anna to the movies. she declines, explaining she has to get back to the family farm, and he walks her to her bus. on december 23rd 1969, phillips petroleum finally finds oil on the ocean viking platform, with claims it’s the largest underwater oil reservoir ever found.

→ THE SUMMER HOUSE , spring 1970.

anna is in the midst of wedding planning with ingrid and fredrik at garnodden, the family summer house, but christian himself is a no-show. fredrik is in need of a translator at a meeting with a possible buyer in england and asks anna to accompany him. christian holds a party at his new apartment, a purchase he has kept secret from both his parents and anna, and invites friends and coworkers from the platform, including jonathan. while at the party, christian and anna get into an argument about his family’s financial problems and their different priorities. after christian storms off, a conversation with jonathan makes anna realise that selling garnodden to phillips petroleum would stop the nyman family from going into financial ruin. the next day, fredrik’s meeting in england is unsuccessful, but after anna recommends turning their old trawling ships into supply ships for oil companies, fredrik returns to stavanger with a new sense of hope. when anna later tells fredrik that she took jonathan to garnodden so he could survey the plot, he’s disappointed in her, but after yet another unsuccessful meeting with the bank, he decides to follow her advice and sells garnodden to jonathan and phillips petroleum, against his family’s wishes.

→ SIXTY NINE METRES DOWN , spring / summer 1970.

→ DIRDAL VALLEY , early 1971.

when phillips petroleum is looking to build a dry dock for the construction of the ekofisk tank, jonathan notices anna’s family farm in dirdal on one of the possible building plans. the land owners are to be given offers by norwegian contractors’ gunnar sandvik later the same day, so jonathan drives anna to her family farm so she can convince her father to take the offer. by the time they get there, hardon has already refused the offer, but after anna lies to her family about the other landowners accepting, her father changes his mind and accepts the offer. after the meeting, anna and gunnar meet for celebratory drinks at esso motor hotel, where a moment between anna and jonathan is interrupted by toril, who now works as a waitress at the hotel. anna spends more time with jonathan, while christian decides to start a diving company of his own with martin, a friend and fellow ocean viking diver. meanwhile, the stavanger city council has decided that the dry dock will be built in jåttåvågen rather than dirdal, and anna’s actions has alienated her family from the rest of the village.

→ HOPE AND FRAUD , march 1971.

while he struggles with financing his diving company c - max, christian and anna continue getting into arguments over the smallest things. fredrik sells his canning company to hastings, the english company who turned him down the year prior, in order to help christian with his company, but lies about the production rate. anna accompanies rettedal in a meeting with arve johnsen, a labour party politician working on establishing a state owned oil company. back at the office, anna’s female colleagues think she’s beginning to sound like a politician, and jonathan invites her on a road trip the following day. christian offers rein a job with c - max, but when anna returns to the family farm to share the good news, she’s faced with the harsh realities her family is facing in dirdal. rein turns down christian’s offer, having been approached by phillips petroleum for a job at the platform. hardon insists anna and christian’s wedding should be held at the family farm, and won’t give her a suitable date for the ceremony. anna then decides to join jonathan on his road trip around stavanger, opening up to him about her struggles of feeling indebted to the nyman family. back at the nyman house, ingrid informs the family that hardon has finally agreed to hold the wedding at the atlantic hotel in stavanger in late june 1972. when the father of toril’s son shows up to talk to toril, christian reacts with jealousy and anna decides to spend the night at her family’s farm. things have begun to settle in dirdal, and the hellevik family is slowly but surely being included in the village again. being at the family farm makes it clear that deep down anna is unsure about her engagement.

→ PARTY AT ESSO MOTOR HOTEL , december 1971.

the norwegian state is considering moving the oil operation to bergen, so rettedal asks anna to help him convince the state’s industry committee to choose stavanger as the oil capital of norway. after taking the committee on a tour of the ekofisk tank, jonathan invites anna on yet another road trip the very same night, but she turns him down as she’s busy with work as rettedal is hosting a dinner for the committee. when arve johnsen tells rettedal it’s unlikely the committee will vote for stavanger because it’s such a conservative and religious town, anna is given the responsibility to organise a party at esso motor hotel to show the delegates that stavanger can be fun. after the party, jonathan tells anna he likes her and they spend the night together. they sleep together again the following day, but anna is conflicted. after having dinner with rettedal at esso motor hotel, anna goes home to christian to break off their engagement, but finds herself unable to. she calls jonathan, who expects to hear good news, but instead tells him she doesn’t know how christian would cope if she left him. she tries writing a letter to end the engagement, but can’t find the right words and instead goes back to christian, ending her relationship with jonathan before it’s even begun.

→ THE OIL CAPITAL , spring / summer 1972.

anna and christian’s wedding is only a few months away, and planning is in full swing but at the wedding tasting, anna finds herself arguing with fredrik over their differing political views, and her distaste for the family’s view on wealth only grows. the next day, jonathan and ed young have a meeting with rettedal which anna transcribes. after the meeting, jonathan, who still has feelings for anna, asks her to go for a drive but she refuses. she rushes home to christian, but is left annoyed at his drinking habits. jonathan flies back to bartlesville. meanwhile, on june 14th, the parliament votes on the establishment of a state owned oil company and the location of norway’s oil capital. stavanger wins and is officially made the oil capital, and the parliament votes to establish a state owned oil company, which later becomes statoil. jonathan is offered a senior position at the phillips headquarters in bartlesville. later the same day, anna and christian’s parents are finalizing seating arrangements for the wedding reception when anna finally breaks down. a conversation with fredrik leads her to finally admit she doesn’t love christian anymore, and she ends the engagement. she then applies for a bachelor in economics at nhh ( norwegian school of economics ) in bergen. in august, jonathan turns down the senior position in bartlesville and returns to stavanger. the two reunite and decide to enter a long distance relationship while anna studies.

#❪ i. ❫ A. HELLEVIK ‚ picture me in the weeds before i learned civility.#notes. –– a. h.#literally just copy pasted from my old blog but... hello.#anna is fun! she's a socialist. a future economist. a hard worker. a take no shit type of girl. she's egotistical and proud yet filled with #shame and fear. she hates feeling indebted to people yet her economic situation forces her to be.#she's fun and i love her and so should you!

0 notes

glittergummicandypeach · 4 years

Text

Why the Media and Democrats Should Reject the Christian Right’s Pearl-Clutching and Address Problematic Religious Views | Religion Dispatches

America is trapped in an abusive relationship—not just with the pussy-grabbing President Donald Trump, our abuser-in-chief, but also with the Republican Party, its white Christian base, the police, and the increasingly uninhibited “good guys with guns,” whose vigilante actions are evidently becoming increasingly brazen. And unless liberals, leftists, and all Americans of good conscience are willing to confront the abusive character of the authoritarian right in no uncertain terms, I frankly don’t see how we can defeat surging fascism and set this country on a healthy democratic path.

To riff on the work of retired UC Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff, who documented the ways in which Americans understand politics through family-related metaphors, if the United States is a dysfunctional family, then much of the media has taken on the role of the peacemaker.

In a dysfunctional family, the peacemaker “may become anger-phobic and attempt to smooth out differences before a healthy interchange can take place,” according to couples’ counselors Linda and Charlie Bloom. The flurry of discussion around Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the apparent frontrunner to be named Trump’s pick to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat, neatly illustrates the dynamic in which the right gaslights the American public, and the media normalizes and perpetuates the gaslighting.

In the case of Barrett, context matters. Trump has been stacking the federal judiciary specifically with right-wing Catholics and members of the Federalist Society, which even The New York Times describes as “a legal group with views once considered on the ‘fringe.’” Barrett is a Catholic, a Federalist Society member, and a member of the high-control “covenant community” known as People of Praise, a Christian group with about 90% Catholic membership that emerged from the Catholic “charismatic renewal” that began in 1967.

People of Praise assigns its members spiritual leaders; men are assigned “heads” and women are assigned “woman leaders” (formerly “handmaids”). In the case of a married woman, this leader is automatically her husband. Meanwhile, Barrett’s far-right bona fides are not in question. She is an acolyte of the late arch-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but influential right-wingers are already trying to make serious discussion of her politics off limits by crying loudly with faux outrage over legitimate public scrutiny of her religious commitments:

Regardless of where anyone stands on the prudence of a SCOTUS nomination and vote during an election, the already-emerging attacks on Amy Coney Barrett's faith are utterly repugnant. Can we not separate the person from the policy and treat her with dignity and respect?

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 22, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump hasn’t even made his pick yet and the liberal mob is already viciously attacking Judge Amy Coney Barrett for being a Christian and a working mom of seven kids. American women should be paying close attention to what Democrats really think of us.

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) September 22, 2020

Of course, right-wingers loudly questioned President Barack Obama’s religion when he was a candidate, and when he was in office. But what’s good for the goose is never good for the gander with the openly hypocritical American Right, whose leaders are now working to push through a SCOTUS appointment in an election year just four years after inventing a “tradition” of leaving such vacancies open for the victor of the ensuing presidential election to fill.

Note also that former Trump Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who perfected her gaslighting skills during her time working for the Trump administration, claims that “a liberal mob” is “viciously attacking Judge Amy Coney Barrett for being a Christian” when she’s knows quite well that this is patently untrue. It also smoothly juxtaposes politics and religion, falsely implying that Barrett’s Christianity is above politics.

No one is raising objections to the possible nomination of Barrett for a SCOTUS seat on the basis of her being a Christian. If anyone actually contended that Christian faith is disqualifying, that would leave very few eligible appointees to any position in a majority Christian nation. But to effectively push back on the flood of gaslighting currently being unleashed by the Christian Right, we need to flip the script.

Lord knows (if you’ll pardon the expression), the Democratic Party is far from godless. But, while God talk in the party may sometimes annoy non-religious Democrats, no serious liberal argues that adherence to a religion itself is disqualifying for public office, which would be to advocate for an unconstitutional position. The difference is this: in the vast majority of cases, Democrats of faith understand their religious commitments as compatible with an approach to pluralism that provides robust equality for all in the public square. Right-wing Christians, on the other hand, espouse an anti-pluralist understanding of their faith, using and abusing the rhetoric of “religious freedom” to demand the right to be, as it were, “more equal than others.”

And when Democrats object to the politics of right-wing bigotry, conservative Christians respond with moral panic, spewing flurries of concern-trolling comments on “religious freedom” and America’s commitment to apply no religious test for public office. In the case of Barrett, notably, even Catholic scholar Massimo Faggioli contends that it’s not anti-Catholic to ask questions about how her specific beliefs might shape her decisionmaking as a justice. But the Christian Right carries on with its moral panic and faux outrage in the hopes of making such questioning politically impossible. The same issue came up when Trump nominated Barrett to the federal judiciary in 2017, and this move is perennially in play with respect to the Christian Right’s attempts to ban abortion and prevent LGBTQ equality by obscuring a bigoted desire to dominate women and “sexual deviants” behind “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Meanwhile, as we saw in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, America lets “hostility to religious beliefs” stand unquestioned as a reason to overturn rulings that favor robust equality in the public square. Somehow, though, we never seem to question the Christian Right’s hostility toward progressive people of faith in any major media outlet, and we take for granted right-wing Christians’ hostility to the non-religious in general, and to atheists in particular, treating it as normal. But we should not blame members of othered groups for the presence of hostility between them and the authoritarian Christians who don’t approve of their existence,, as Trump’s new executive order effectively banning anti-racist education for all government agencies, federal grantees, and federal contractors does.

Unfortunately, our major media outlets generally fail to consider power dynamics and let stand the widespread impression that “real” Christianity is conservative, and that critical scrutiny of conservative Christian views is strictly verboten. To do so while Christian nationalists are stacking the federal judiciary, removing protections for women and queer people in schools, and undermining our response to a deadly pandemic by refusing to wear masks and challenging public health initiatives in court, is wildly irresponsible.

As I recently argued elsewhere, criticism of religious views that are mobilized to affect those who do not share them must be on the table in a fair, democratic society:

Like freedom of the press, religious freedom is an important First Amendment right. But when believers use their faith as a bludgeon to attack othered groups and to prevent equal accommodation of members of those groups in the public square, we have moved beyond the bounds of a truly democratic approach to pluralism.

To be sure, some media coverage is directing critical attention at the red flags raised by Barrett’s affiliation with People of Praise, though with the exception of Massimo Faggioli’s excellent piece at Politico it’s mostly been unnuanced. But for the most part, we are getting hand-wringing and bothesidesism at best, and dismissiveness with a heavy dose of false equivalence at worst.

In a particularly egregious example of the latter, Fordham University theology professor Charles C. Camosy argued in Religion News Service that there is no reason to view Barrett’s desire to “advance the Kingdom of God” through law as substantially different from the devotion of liberal Christians like President Obama to their version of that ideal. “Neither is a dangerous theocrat,” Camosy tells us flatly, even claiming that “Kingdom of God” rhetoric, no matter what sort of Christian it comes from, is “not so different from the Jewish concept of tikkun olam” in its expression of a commitment to realizing justice on earth.

If one were comparing theological concepts in a vacuum Camosy might have a point, but this isn’t a theological issue so much as a cultural and political one. Theological concepts take on political meaning in a given cultural context. By ignoring both Barrett’s past comments and the way that kingdom rhetoric has often been deployed to uphold discrimination, to say nothing of the hegemonic nature of Christianity in the United States,, Camosy is gaslighting his readers. In contrast, there is no Jewish tradition in the United States of using the concept of tikkun olam as a bludgeon to control non-Jews.

While Democrats must undoubtedly be careful in how they question Barrett, assuming Trump does nominate her to fill Ginsburg’s seat, public discussion that questions the relationship between Barrett’s far-right politics and her religious views is absolutely valid, and we should not let the double standards that characterize our politics and media because of Christian supremacism prevent us from doing so.

In addition, we would do well to remember that any nominee put up by Trump is illegitimate, as constitutional law expert Andrew Seidel recently contended here on RD, because of the GOP’s openly hypocritical power grab. The Republican Party has become an authoritarian organization, and the politics of authoritarianism is a politics of abuse. If we hope to defeat it, we must stop letting our abusers get into our heads with their bad-faith rhetoric, and we must loudly and clearly call out their gaslighting wherever we see it.

This content was originally published here.

0 notes

creativitytoexplore · 4 years

Photo

The Library in White Cedar by Edward Ahern https://ift.tt/2Zf6txu John Willman attends the death of a library, and stands to inherit its books; by Edward Ahern.

The two-day drive from Connecticut to White Cedar, Michigan was endless neon chain links - the same motels, gas stations, and restaurants sprouting up about every ten miles along the interstate. I was on my way to assist at the funeral of the library in White Cedar. My great, great grandfather, Thomas Willman, had provided the money to build the library and on his death had bequeathed his books to it. He'd specified that if the town closed the library the books should be returned to his heirs. I was the only surviving descendent the town had found, and I'd rented a large SUV in case the books were worth claiming. Cathy Bender, the town librarian, had been the one to call. Her voice had that slight midwestern nasality that some easterners find annoying but I had always liked. "Mr. Willman, praise the Lord I was able to find you. We need to talk about the Willman books in our library." "Call me John, please. What about them?" "White Cedars can't support the library any more, and has to close it." "Maybe get some cultural aid money from the state." "Ah. Well, they're radical Democrats and we're solid Tea Party, so they don't look too kindly on us." I paused. "Well, Cathy, I could be classified as one of those rad libs." There was a pause on her end. "Well, you seem nice anyway, John, we just won't talk politics." Or religion, I thought. Cathy and I spent the next fifteen minutes talking safely if boringly about White Cedar and its recent activities. Her voice had a pleasing brook burble to it, and I let her flow. I drove into town the late afternoon of the second day. The main street had only one traffic light - a flashing yellow. Many of the store fronts were papered over, and those still clear-glassed looked grimy. White Cedar was dying, one organ at a time, and it was the library's turn. There were no pedestrians, and the only hint of congestion was at the gas station cum convenience store. Beer sales apparently were still good. I parked in the overgrown lot of an abandoned Kmart and called Cathy. "Cathy? It's John Willman. I just got into town." "Depressing isn't it, John. The nearest motel is about seven miles down the state road, in case you've changed your mind about staying with me. My place is no Marriott, but it's comfortable, and I could use the money. I have WiFi." After two days of blurring Motel Six, Days Inn and Red Roof signs, I wanted local. "Still forty dollars a day?" "Yes. Is that too much?" "It's fine. I'm guessing meals aren't included?" "No, but the diner down the street is open early to late and could use the business too." It took a full three minutes to drive to her house. She was waiting on the front porch. "We've talked so much on the phone, John, I feel like I know you." Cathy was petite, slim and short haired. We said hello again and hugged because it seemed the thing to do. She felt nice. We walked my bags up to an upstairs bedroom and came back down into a front room stuffed with old furniture. She called it a parlor. "I can do credit cards, but if you pay me by cash or check it saves me money." My check book was seven hundred fifty miles away. "Ah, no problem, I'll just hit an ATM when I go for dinner." I looked at Cathy more closely. She'd graduated from forty, but then so had I. Her expression had a weathered, inquisitive quality, as if despite bad treatment she was still open to experience. "Look, if you haven't eaten, would you mind coming with me to dinner? You could fill me in on the library and what we need to do. My treat." She didn't bother to protest, which I liked. "Sure. I haven't eaten there in weeks." The diner had a faint background aroma of rancid grease. Cathy said first name hellos to the other eaters and the waitress and introduced me, although I assumed that they already knew who I was and why I was there. She didn't drink alcohol, so neither did I. After we'd coated our stomachs with fried food, we started talking about the library's last rites. "Once the elementary school closed and the kids started getting bussed to Smithdale, the library emptied out. There's no money to fix the building or buy books, hasn't been for years. My title is librarian, but I'm just an unpaid caretaker. "A book merchant will take all the other titles, John, but at thirty cents apiece. We'll get four thousand dollars, which will barely cover closing up the building and paying off the utility bills. Except of course for your great, great grandfather's collection. That's in a separate room. Doris Lunning, the last real librarian, limited access to the collection to what she called 'serious scholars.' Nobody claims to be that in White Cedar, so the collection just got dusty." I was familiar with dead ends - the childless remnant of the Willman line, with family records and photos mailed to me as other relatives had passed on. Records that included a listing of the books in the Willman collection. I'd emailed the descriptions to two dealers for initial appraisals. Cathy wore what looked to be an engagement ring on a right-hand finger. She caught my glance and puckered her mouth. "It's what you're guessing. Six years of un-bliss and a divorce. He was a jerk and I kept the ring. He left town." "Kids?" "No, thank the Lord. Although I wanted them." "Same story, different perspective. She left me for another guy, but did give the ring back. Keep it in my hope chest." Cathy laughed. The resonance was pleasant. Then her expression tightened into serious. "I've talked with the mayor about the Willman books. They were, after all, willed to the town. Wouldn't it be the right thing us to find another home for them? You could just sign a waiver giving the books to us." I wondered. If they were trying to get legal rights to those antique books there might be something more to them than paper lice. "Sell them off, you mean." "Yes, but as a collection that would be housed in another library, and would live on as a collection under the Willman name. You've seen what our town has become, we're in desperate need of funds. It would be beneficial for both you and us." I studied the four wilted French Fries left on my plate. "Interesting possibility, Cathy, but before I decide on anything, I need to know what the books are worth. It'll take a few days to hear back, and meanwhile I need to go through the library and verify their condition." She touched my hand. "That sounds like a polite no. Please don't slam the door on us, John, leave it ajar while we keep talking." I realized I didn't want to go back to suitcases and WiFi. "Is there any place left in town where you can watch me drink?" She laughed again. "We haven't sunk quite that far. There are two bars, one for the beer and shot crowd, and one with cocktail napkins under the glasses." "Upscale please." We could have walked to the bar, but I drove. Cathy also knew all five people there, and introduced me as 'the Willman heir.' I cringed, because it made me sound like someone ripe for donating. She ordered cola, I ordered scotch and soda. We avoided discussing the library, and peeked into each other's lives. I knew she was a born again Christian and staunch conservative, which took several other topics out of play. Cathy described losing her last job when the local car dealership closed, and having no immediate prospects for a new one. I downplayed my position in an academic think tank, but she called me out. "Don't give me that false modesty. I looked you up. You're a senior fellow. And a successful politician before that." She said it with a forgiving grin and I shrugged admittance. Our chatter quick-stepped from topic to topic, and I reluctantly called it a night after two drinks. I didn't want the one cop on night shift to bust me for DWI. On the drive back she offered to provide breakfast before we went over to the library, and I immediately accepted. Back at her house, we settled into saggy cushioned easy chairs in the living room. She kept surprising me. She'd gone to college on a scholarship, and used her teaching degree to get a job at the town elementary school. A job that disappeared when the school closed. The well-used house we sat in had been her parents and grandparents. Cathy was attached and beholden to a town that would, like her husband, leave her. When we stood up, I wanted to kiss her cheek, but just shook hands before I went upstairs. Once in bed, lights off, I realized it was too dark and too quiet. I missed my overdeveloped suburb and its white noise pacifier. I smirked after coming downstairs the next morning. We were both dressed in flannel shirts and jeans, ready for dusty work. Breakfast was healthy-yogurt, juice and whole wheat toast, and I guessed that Cathy had eaten her chicken-fried steak the night before as a gesture for me. The library building, a small Victorian, sagged both outside and in, and water stains blotched the paper on several walls. The building was uninsurable and probably uninhabitable. I raised an eyebrow at Cathy and she shrugged. "I warned you we were on hard times." The Willman collection was in an interior room, musty but still dry. It needed to be moved soon, before the cloth covered electrical wiring or a water leak attacked. But even dusty and unused it was impressive. Three hundred fifty books, about half of them leather bound, with several outsized folios. According to my list, the last book had been added in 1902. I'd brought my laptop, and I held it up toward Cathy. "Do we have service?" "We pirate internet from the auto supply store next door. They know about it, of course." Small towns are without secrets, and I assumed last night's house sharing was already under discussion. I'd started taking cell phone photos and sending them off to the book appraisers, when an overdue thought struck me. "Cathy, I'm guessing you've already had the collection evaluated?" She paused. "Sort of. We couldn't afford a real appraisal, but sent a list to the book dealer in Grand Rapids who's buying all the other books." "What did he offer for the Willman lot?" There was a longer pause. "Twenty three thousand. We have no idea if that's fair." "Neither do I. But I will. The two companies I'm using won't be bidding on the lot, so they'll hopefully be honest." Cathy left me alone in the Willman room and went over to the desktop computer at the checkout desk. After I'd sent off pictures and details I started browsing through the records, trying to get a feel for who my great, great grandfather had been. His obituary was fulsome with praise, but family gossip had told of a cunning and ruthless businessman. I wondered if the library building and the impressive books had been his repayment to all the townspeople he'd skinned. As I was gingerly leafing through the books, I got an email back from Dulters and Wilkins, one of the appraisers. "Advisory on the Thomas McKinney History of the Indian Tribes of North America, three volumes 1838, 1842 and 1844, inscribed by McKinney to Henry Clay and containing pasted-in Ex Libris bookplates of Henry Clay, signed by him. Impossible to provide formal valuation without physical examination, but initial indication unsigned is $170,000 and signed by author and Henry Clay $225,000. Other valuations to follow." I stared at nothing. The book dealer Cathy had mentioned would have at least a vague idea of the value of the McKinney books, which meant either he was playing the town of White Cedar or Cathy was playing me. She'd left me alone in the Willman room and after another hour I realized I wanted her company and walked over to the main desk. She was watching videos on her cell phone. In the three hours we'd been there not another person had entered. "Lonely work." "And I usually shirk it. I stay home, and just leave a sign on the entry door that anyone who wants to use the library should call me so I could open it up. No one does." I wondered if it wasn't equally boring at home, but said nothing. I lifted the countertop hatch, went into librarian territory, and sat at a desk facing Cathy's. "You should get out of here." "And go home?" "No, move out, find a town with a pulse, and get the teaching job you deserve." She showed me that smile again. "And leave all this? I get by, sort of, on alimony and some left over money. Nobody would buy the house, so I'd just have to board it up and abandon it. Except for college, everything I know and am is here, including my church Moving away would be like abandoning a sick relative I should be caring for. Does that sound stupid?" "A little. But I've never had the relationship with place like you're talking about. Look, let's get out of Sleepy Hollow this evening. Bentonville is less than an hour away and according to my laptop has six restaurants and a multiplex theater. Could I entice you into a movie and dinner?" "Well aren't you suave. Of course. A woman my age shouldn't turn down a date." Once we'd locked up the library, we stopped back at Cathy's house to change before heading out. The speed limit plus ten conversation was haphazard, because our frames of reference not only didn't overlap, they almost didn't abut. Her temperament suited me, but I was a fervently liberal atheist intrigued with a born-again Tea Partier. Despite that, we laughed a lot. After we'd left the restaurant and gotten into my car, I turned to her. "Cathy, I need to tell you up front that I'm going to keep the Willman books. I feel about the books the way you feel about White Cedar. I want to shepherd them for one more generation. I'll be leaving in a couple days and will pack them up and take them with me." I studied her while I said this. She looked relieved rather than disappointed. "I had to ask about them, but that's fine, they're your books, after all." "It's great that you understand. I need to make a quick stop at the pharmacy before we head back." The ride back was quieter, the conversation more piquant. We'd only met the day before, and my departure was already in sight. Once back in her house we sat close together on the living room couch. We kissed, lightly, and then again more seriously. Without words we began to gently explore each other, the geriatric sofa complaining about our shifts in position. Cathy leaned back slightly and looked at me. "Does your pit stop at the out of town drug store mean what I think it does?" "Afraid so." "I appreciate your discretion." She smiled, and we resumed, two long abstinent adults relying on muscle memory. Once we subsided and snuggled together, the sofa got its revenge, and my twisted back began to cramp. Eventually I gave up and suggested she could share my bed, but she turned me down. "Your neighbors will talk no matter what we do." "Of course, but I don't want them confirming it by seeing two shadows in an upstairs bedroom window." We kissed and I went upstairs, carrying my wadded-up clothes in one hand. The next morning, I realized how much I missed a comfortable, not quite-fully-dressed conjugal breakfast, helping each other to set places, and serve the meal. In Connecticut I didn't even have a dog. "If you're willing to give me the library key, I can finish up with the Willman collection by myself, Cathy. But if you're not busy I'd love to have you there with me. We don't even have to talk about Thomas Willman, who by insider accounts was a bastard." Her half smile revealed slightly uneven teeth that I found winsome. "John, I'm feeling guilty about last night, and hanging out together is maybe not a good idea." "Please. Don't leave me alone with these mummified books." Her smile this time was open. "I suppose I have to keep an eye on you so you don't steal any of our valuable volumes." "Atta girl." We washed up the breakfast dishes and drove over to the library, where I reviewed the texted appraisals and answered questions that had come in since the day before. There were some other pleasant surprises. I took flattened cardboard boxes, interleaving sheets and tape out of the SUV, then started folding the boxes into shape and filling them with Willman books. Around noon I drove over to the quick mart, bought a couple drinks and premade sandwiches and brought them back for our lunch. The sandwich bread had the consistency of the cardboard I was assembling. I started in as we were finishing our colas. "Cathy, I'll be leaving early tomorrow morning, so no breakfast please." She said nothing, her expression a sad-serious it hurt to see. "But I hope we can go out to dinner again tonight." She still said nothing. "We're so different I think we'd be throwing knives at each other before the end of the month, but I also think you're wonderful." She stood up in silence and walked over to me, cupping my cheek in her palm. "Have you ever made love in a library?" "What? No." "Neither have I. But I've thought about it. There's a skinny sofa in the librarian's office." I locked the front door and we walked together into the back office. The settee barely had room for two posteriors, let alone two torsos, but we made do. Afterwards we stuffed the car with book boxes, cleaned up at her house and had another diner dinner. This time I tried with a Greek salad, but I didn't think a Greek would have recognized it. Once back at Cathy's house we sat on the sofa again, but just talked. For hours. When I finally went up to bed, I'd learned a great deal more about her, but still had to stand outside her viewpoints. She was like a Japanese scroll, with beautifully brushed kanji whose shapes I could admire but remain unable to appreciate the meaning of. In the morning, after coffee, I gave her a gentle goodbye kiss. "I've left a three-volume set on the bed upstairs, Cathy. They're yours to sell. A book a night, seems a fair room rental. There's a card inside the top book from a book appraiser - I've told him you'll be calling. "You could give the money to the town but there's not nearly enough to save it. There is enough to resuscitate you - get a teaching job someplace that deserves you. You could always come back and spend summers here, the winters probably suck anyway." "You said you were going to keep the books." "I lied. I needed to see if you knew the books were valuable and were playing me." Her expression hardened and quickly softened again. "I passed, so you made one?" "Something like that. Whatever you decide, in summer, who knows, maybe I'll call with a yen for your local chicken fried steak." She laughed again, and I carried the sound with me out to the car. The smell of old leather and paper permeated the interior on the drive back, reminding me that the rest of the Willman collection would allow indulgence in expensive habits for some time to come.

#FICTION on the WEB short stories

0 notes

bad-idealist · 6 years

Text

Icarus heights (The intro to a story about superheroes and villains, think X men meets Farcry) Enjoy :)

The evening sky was dim, the grey obelisk that was Icarus heights rose far above the neon haze of the cityscape. The only source of light on the buildings matte skin being a single tacked on-sign, bright blue, that read “Long live the king”. Its bold words flickered faintly, taunting the world below, and bathing the rooms behind it in a seas of light. If one were to view it from street level the words would be barely legible, as if to further cement its status as above the people, and the many corpses of buildings, scrapped to make way for its construction, served as a reminder that it was an unstoppable force, an inevitability, and that’s its occupants cared not for the struggles of the common folk.

Much harder to notice, was the small veiled figure clinging to the face of the tower, carefully scaling it like a determined flea on the back of a great hound. The winds were getting stronger with every foot he ascended, and the first droplets of an oncoming storm had already soaked into his crude fabric mask. He had lost count of what floor he was at a while back, every pane looked identical, and he was surprised he hadn’t been seen by now. For all the goons the bastard has they aren’t the brightest. He amused himself with the ridiculousness of the situation, but the soft roar of distant thunder prompted him to make fast his ascent. He counted the remaining floors till the top. Around 5 left. With the storm fast approaching he couldn’t stay out in the open, he’d have to scale the rest from the inside. He’d hoped to conserve his energy and save himself for his target, but his suction cups couldn’t operate if the glass was slicked with rain. So he took a reluctant breath, concentrated and slowly phased himself through the black window. The room he landed in was empty, Thank god, and lavishly unassuming. He patted himself down to ensure he had brought all of his effects through with him, phasing required total focus, and having only possessed such a trait for a month he had not long to master it. Dagger-check, clothes-check, Gun….

He frantically checked the many pockets that lined his homemade cloak. It wasn’t there. He imagined the silenced pistol tumbling down from the high-rise and knocking some innocent out cold. He’d have to find it again after, if he survived. There was little time to examine the room as the grumbling of guards could be heard nearby. And soon enough the door to the room swung open, and the cloaked boy dove beneath the room’s central table. The grumbling stopped, Had they seen him? Their heavy footsteps grew closer, so he silently unsheathed the small dagger from his boot.

“Nothing?”

“Nothing. The boss don’t pay us enough for this, what’s he so paranoid about anyways?”

The voices where clear now, and the table creaked as one of the men leaned on it. The boy decided he may as well practice with the dagger, he’ll need it.

“Me” he growled as menacingly as he could, before leaping out over the table and slashing at the nearest one’s neck. He dropped his rifle and went to scream, but the boy muffled him with a gloved hand. The second guard swung. Only to have his fist slip through the boy. Who quickly dispatched him in similar fashion to his companion. He considered picking up the firearm, but hesitated. That would just draw attention to himself. He then noticed just how much blood splattered his garments. Good thing he was wearing red. Down the sleek halls he lurked, having to find each new floor’s entrance due to the peculiar lack of an elevator or consistent stairwell. By this point the storm was gaining momentum, thunder shook the air, lightning danced across the tower’s metal frame. And the sounds of blood hitting floorboard were masked by the spattering of rain against the windows, which were just as dulled from the inside. The guards were definitely not the brightest, the invader thought as he silently carved through three more who were previously engaged in a poker match. There wasn’t far to go now. By the time he’d gotten to the entrance to the final floor he was dripping in the blood of what must’ve been twenty men. But that didn’t matter. He’d made it. He assumed there was no more need for stealth, How many guards could the man have? He lightly tried the ornate double doors. Locked. So, now in a rush to finally meet his prey he walked through the sturdy oak, and into a penthouse. It was modern and geometric in design, oddly homely compared to the rest of the place. The centre being a rather large fireplace, paired with a grand leather chair with its back to the entrance. In which sat the one this whole ordeal was about.

The boy hadn’t been noticed, and so slowly crept towards the chair. Dagger in hand.

“Hello. Mr ashton.” Came a smooth, confident call. “Although amongst my men you’ve become known as ‘The wraith’.”

Was he mocking him? It was hard to tell. The boy approached the chair. Teeth grit and arm raised. “Yeah well your thugs aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed.” Came the boy’s retort. “Besides, I saw the sign. The king? Really?”

“Oh don’t you like it? I thought the blue would brighten up the place.” The chair rotated, like something from a spy movie, to reveal a slick looking young man in a rather luxurious suit. He leaned forwards, almost eagerly and continued “And to you. I am the king.” The boys patience had worn thing. He held the dagger to the tyrants neck, only pausing for one last question. “Why?”

“ Why the tower, the guards, the gangs in the streets? Why did you take our city from us?” The man chuckled. “If I recall correctly when people like yourself started popping up you weren’t exactly considered welcome, normal people don’t want you in their city. I on the other hand, say everyone is welcome, provided you know your place.”

“You left the streets in ruin and hundreds dead!” The boy growled. Only to be met with a condescending look and retort. “Actually, I said live however you see fit, provided they follow one rule: Don’t fuck with the king, you people did the rest yourself.”

“Yeah whatever” Said the boy, and thrust the dagger forth. It froze. Just shy of the self proclaimed king’s chest. His entire body froze, and a sarcastic clapping could be heard from behind. “You know I didn’t expect you to buy such a cliché mob boss shtick but wow! You are STUPID.” The voice, which couldn’t have been much older than the boy’s was almost hysterical. The boy’s head turned, not of his own will, to face his speaker. It was another young lad, not much older than himself, donned in a simple hoodie and some cheap jeans. Who the fuck are you? The boy thought, but couldn’t bring his lips to move. “My name is Stane, Christian Stane. And I’m the king.” Was he in his head? The boy willed himself to move, but to no avail. “Yes I am. pretty cool huh?” Stane looked his captive up and down amusedly, trying not to laugh. “You like my puppet?” He gestured to the man in the chair who, simply sat blank faced and dead eyed. “I think it’s great” It spoke.

“See, he even answers when spoken to. So speak up.” It was hard to tell if he was mocking or genuinely expected him to sleep. The former was confirmed when he once more laughed and moved even closer to the paralyzed boy. “But what he said was true, I’m simply acting in my best interest, the people down there don’t seem to have the biggest sense of community either.” He paused, composing himself for a second. “Ok you’ve been a massive pain in my ass lately, and now your beginning to bore me. Say what you need to say. I’m gonna kill you regardless.” He drew a chrome handgun and squared it at the boys forehead.

“YOU GODDAMN PHSYCOPATH!” The boy roared, surprised at his own ability to speak again. He went to say more But his lips tightly sealed before he could get the words out. Stane frowned in mock hurt. But his words were thick with genuine rage. “ I can assure you I am NOT a psychopath.” The boy felt his legs move, but not how he wanted to. Instead they walked him towards the large window overlooking the murky skyline. The windows here were clear from inside, allowing for perfect view of the entire city. Once there the boy turned to face Stane “Psychopaths feel no emotion. But what I’m about to do is gonna make me real happy. There was a gunshot, but no pain, no nothing. The bullet had phased through him. Without him focusing on it. “Good” Stane chuckled, “Your blood everywhere would just ruin the whole vibe of the room ya’ know.” Just as the helpless wraith realised what he meant, a second shot was fired. Directly into his gut. He fell back, phasing through the window and into the cold storm. Stane chuckled, then sighed . He went to watch the body plummet. But couldn’t make it out amongst the rain. Slightly annoyed, but satisfied he watched the lightning strike the rooftops and he recited the blue neon reflected against the many buildings. “Long live the king”.

END

#an excerpt from a story i'll never write #an excerpt from a book i'll never write #story #short story #creative writing #writing #superhero #supervillain

3 notes · View notes

mst3kproject · 7 years

Photo

Short: A Case of Spring Fever

MST3K featured a number of movies, such as The Starfighters and last week's Squirm, that were simply not memorable. They also did a number of movies and shorts that were deeply memorable, but for all the wrongest possible reasons. Mr. B Natural was one of those, and A Case of Spring Fever is another. Both were intended to be whimsical and each, in its own way, ended up being fucking terrifying instead.

The point of A Case of Spring Fever is to explain how springs work and how essential they are to daily life – particularly to automobiles. Our hero, I guess, is Gilbert, a man whose wife wants him to fix the couch before he goes golfing. When he complains that he never wants to see another spring again, a cartoon imp called Coily the Spring Sprite appears and grants his wish. Gilbert quickly realizes that things like his watch and car won't work without springs, and begs Coily to restore them. He then becomes a sort of spring evangelist, and spends the entirety of his golfing trip prostelytizing to his increasingly annoyed friends about how useful springs are until they never want to see another spring again!

The film is meant to be light-hearted and educational, and possibly to sell us cars, but it lends itself immediately to dark and horrible interpretations. Mike and the Bots spend the short and the subsequent skit about Mikey the Mike Sprite wondering how the rules of this universe work. Does every man-made object have a little pixie waiting to snatch it away from us? Have such creatures existed from the dawn of time, anticipating that they will someday be discovered, or did Coily (I'm so sorry) spring into being with the invention of the first spring? Was it only Gilbert who was suddenly spring-less, or did everybody else, too, find their watches stopped and their mattresses bounce-less with no explanation? If it was everybody, was that everybody on Earth, or did it extend to aliens who could theoretically visit us and bring their springs with them? Would it be possible to make another spring after Coily took them away, or would any new spring vanish as soon as it was finished? What happened to the Law of Conservation of Mass as all spring-shaped matter just vanished from the universe?

People would think of questions like these no matter whether the short itself were successful in entertaining and educating us, but the fact that we dwell on them illustrates that it is in fact a failure. Did anybody spend The Lord of the Rings wondering whether Saruman used to be gray and had to be killed by a Balrog before coming back as Saruman the White? Well, actually, yeah, I'm sure somebody did (it may have been me), but those people's friends probably (definitely) told them to shut up and watch the damn movie. The film itself was more interesting and entertaining than such questions. In A Case of Spring Fever, the questions distract us because the short can't hold our attention.

(I do know how the Maiar work, by the way. Please don't feel like you have to explain it to me.)

But that doesn't tell us why A Case of Spring Fever is so memorably distressing. I've seen weirder stuff on TV than Coily the Spring Sprite and it didn't stick in my mind like this short does – and some of that was supposed to be messed-up. What is going on here?

The most obvious thing is Coily himself. You don't forget Coily. He appears as a little cartoon helix with curly lines for arms and legs and a head that looks like it belongs to a bad-tempered Christmas elf. When he speaks, it's in a squeaky, grating old man voice. Every time Gilbert realizes some springless device won't work, Coily appears and shrieks “no spriiiings!” in a mocking tone before vanishing again, until our hapless protagonist is forced to take back his wish or go insane.

Coily is neither well-animated nor appealing in appearance. His gestures are repetitive and he never really looks like he's part of the environment – perhaps he's not supposed to, since he does represent an outside, supernatural force, but it's more likely that the animation was just cheap and primitive. At least some effort was made to make sure the actor playing Gilbert looks in the right direction. I think Coily was meant to be cute, but his long nose, pointed ears, buck teeth, and spiteful expression are almost demonic, and his attitude definitely so. There's something downright nightmarish about the way he pops up to mock as Gilbert grows ever more frustrated. He is literally torturing his victim into compliance.

As Crow observes when he asks how this all fits into 'God's plan for us', Coily is also a very pagan little bugger. In ancient Greece and Rome, people believed that both natural and man-made objects had their own guardian gods or spirits. Iuturna, for example, was the Roman goddess of fountains, and Ianus the god of doors and gates (Wikipedia lists Fons as the god of springs, but they mean the water type). One of the ways early Christianity tried to discourage worship of these gods was by portraying them as demons. Coily, a spirit with a restricted area of responsibility, who must be appeased with devotion or else will lash out and punish people, is just such an entity.

Scholars in the Middle Ages wrote books about the complex hierarchy among the legions of hell. I wonder where Coily fits into those.

Even more disturbing is how the encounter with Coily changes Gilbert. We don't get to know Gilbert very well, but the brief glimpse we have of him is of somebody impatient and a bit lazy, eager for an excuse to avoid his chores and go play golf. When he takes back his wish for no more springs, the film cuts abruptly from Gilbert in the car to Gilbert under the sofa again, which could be interpreted to mean that the last few minutes were only a dream... but then we find Gilbert utterly transformed. Rather than relaxing and enjoying the golf game, he spends the entire afternoon telling his friends about springs, giving even more examples of their ubiquity and usefulness than we already got from Coily. He doesn't act like somebody who just woke from a nightmare. Instead, the nightmare seems to intensify as Gilbert loses his own personality and identity, leaving only an obsession with springs! It seems that Coily has brainwashed Gilbert, or perhaps even possesses his body. That would explain why he suddenly knows so much about how springs work and the many other areas of life they are important to. He has become a puppet under Coily's control, spreading the cult of springs for some dark purpose.

I'm kidding. I think.

Another source of unintentional horror is how A Case of Spring Fever reminds us that our society takes a lot of important things for granted. The lives of first-world urbanites revolve around a number of services that could theoretically be pulled out from under us at any moment. Running water is a good example – when I was younger, the water main on the street where I lived broke, and my family had to get our water from a tank truck at the end of the street for a few days while they fixed it. During that time basic things like cooking, washing, and even using the toilet were of course far more inconvenient and time-consuming than we were used to and you can bet it made us appreciate how much we take water for granted... until about an hour and a half after it came back on. Electricity is probably an even better illustration: we don't realize just how much our lives depend on it until the power goes out and we're left not knowing what to do with ourselves until it comes back on.

It's not possible for every single spring on the planet to suddenly evaporate, but things like electricity and water can. A large solar flare could theoretically kill the power grid over huge areas and the damage might take weeks or months to repair (as those who survived Hurricane Sandy can attest). There are places even in North America where infrastructure problems have left people without clean water for years – Flint, Michigan is only the most famous example. Not to mention those of us who are dependent on medications or some other survival aid that makes contemplating the zombie apocalypse way less fun. The world humans have built for ourselves is fragile, and we don't like being reminded of that.

A Case of Spring Fever is something the Brains had kicking around for quite a long time before they found an opportunity to use it – they referenced it in both Viking Women and the Sea Serpent and Bride of the Monster. These skits couldn't have made much sense to the viewers who hadn't yet seen the short, but the host sketches often didn't make much sense anyway – it must have been a relevation when A Case of Spring Fever finally aired. I suspect they put it in front of Squirm because they knew they were being cancelled and this was their last chance to get it on the show. I'm glad they did.

I can think of a few other shorts that manage to be fucked-up and fascinating enough that I'll probably end up reviewing them. Days of Our Years (appearing before The Amazing Transparent Man) comes to mind, as does Design for Dreaming (from Twelve to the Moon). I may even try to track down the entire runs of things like Radar Men from the Moon and Undersea Kingdom, though I'll probably be sorry I did. Wish me luck.

#mst3k #reviews #a case of spring fever #40s

87 notes · View notes

cinephiled-com · 4 years

Text

New Post has been published on Cinephiled

New Post has been published on http://www.cinephiled.com/circus-books-rachel-mason-chronicles-parents-surprising-business-selling-gay-porn/

In ‘Circus of Books,’ Rachel Mason Chronicles Her Parents’ Surprising Business — Selling Gay Porn

Rachel Mason’s moving documentary tells the story of the iconic bookstore and gay porn shop that served as the epicenter for LGBTQ life in Los Angeles for decades. Unbeknownst to many in the community it served, the store was cultivated and cared for by Mason’s parents, Karen and Barry, a straight conservative Jewish couple. Circus of Books is an intimate portrait of the Masons and their accidental journey to become one of the biggest distributors of hardcore gay porn in the United States, all the while downplaying the family business to their friends, synagogue, and even their own children. While they approached their store primarily as a way to support their family, Circus of Books also provided a much-needed non-judgmental gathering place for L.A.’s LGBTQ community. When the AIDS epidemic hit with a vengeance, Karen and Barry provided aid and comfort to countless people who were suffering, even as the mens’ own families rejected them.

Rachel Mason, director of Circus Of Books

An accomplished artist in her own right, Rachel Mason’s portrait of this lost world (her parents finally retired last year and the bookstore closed for good) is a poignant and entertaining document of an institution that was vital to its community. Mason also wrote and performs the end credit song, “Give You Everything.” The film is now available for screening on Netflix. I so enjoyed talking to Rachel Mason from her shelter-in-place.

Danny Miller: Rachel, it’s great to talk with you, I so enjoyed this beautiful film!

Rachel Mason: Thank you so much, I appreciate that!

I was happy to hear that you had already done the festival circuit with the film and that you got to screen it with appreciative audiences. I so feel for filmmakers who are having their films come out during this miserable pandemic.

Yes, we should have a moment of silence for all the films that are not getting what I got, it’s so sad. We were going to have a theatrical release, but I’m thrilled that people can now see the film on Netflix. I loved our time at all of the festivals, but the gay festivals in particular were such a joy. There was such a communal spirit at those screenings, with everyone getting all the references and laughing and crying at all the right moments!

I imagine this would be such a fun film to see with a big crowd.

For sure. When I saw the film with gay audiences, that’s when felt like I had actually done something for my community. I really feel for all the filmmakers and audiences who aren’t getting that right now, I hope we can figure out new ways to get that community spirit.

The upside, I guess, if you can call it that, is that you’ve got a captive audience yearning for new content.

That’s true. And while I think the film is for everyone, I think one of the best things about it is that it’s bringing people together in the queer community to remind us all of this historical past that is slipping away so quickly — especially the younger generation. I think many young people don’t have a clue about what the older generation went through. I want them and future generations to know what happened and what the role of erotic content was for our community in those years before the Internet.

I had the chance to interview Scotty Bowers when Matt Tyrnauer’s documentary Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood came out. He reminded me how few options there were before the Internet for gay people. It seems like places like your parents’ store were such a vitally important resource for the community. I’m glad that stories like his and the one you’re telling here are recorded for posterity.

I completely agree. There’s so much that is disappearing because the older generation is not around. The people who survived the AIDS epidemic are like cherished members of our community. We need to get all these stories down. I hope Circus of Books gives people a sense that they really need to look for these stories before they disappear.

Without this film, the story of your parents and their role in this community would never have been known. Needless to say, I totally fell in love with your parents. In so many ways they reminded me so much of my own Jewish parents. It’s fascinating when you talk in the film about how you and your brothers didn’t quite realize what they were doing and it was only your friends who finally clued you in.

It was really interesting because my parents were so not cool. I had lots of cool friend friends with really cool parents, but my parents were not those people. They were kind of boring. They were straight. My mom was super religious which annoyed the crap out of me and all I wanted to do was rebel against them. And then here come my rebel friends who I find out are going to my family’s store and saying how cool it is. It was such a shock to me. In the end, it was exciting to realize that I had this access to one of the coolest places in the city in terms of how all my friends in the gay underground saw it. I think I appreciated the store so much more from the time I was a teenager on, and it was kind of like God’s will that I made this film because nobody else could have gotten the access. I mean, my mom would certainly not have ever let anyone but me follow her around with a camera, that was the last thing she wanted.

It’s kind of a miracle that the film happened at all considering your mother’s reluctance to be a part of it, and yet I think that tension is also part of why it’s such a compelling film. Would you say that you finally won your mother over in terms of her being happy about being part of the documentary?

Well, I did manage to trot her out at a few of the festival screenings and have her stand there while she got standing ovations. My mom is very much a reluctant hero. First off, she hoped no one would ever see this film and now that people are seeing it, she has had to reckon with the fact that she is looked on as a hero by lots of people and yet she doesn’t feel any sense of heroism because up until the day the store closed, she says she was just doing her job — filing paperwork, sending out invoices, making sure her staff got paid — all the things you do to run a small business and none of it was particularly glamorous or interesting. So, when you finally come up for air after 40 years and people start thanking you for doing this work, there’s a sort of shell shock. Plus, my mother has an innate talent to find fault in almost anything. After she got a five-minute standing ovation at Frameline, she was perplexed that it went on for so long. I was like, “Mom, the one thing you can’t criticize is a standing ovation, there is just nothing bad about that!” (Laughs.)

I’m glad she showed up for those events despite her discomfort. In terms of the heroic element, yes, they were providing this amazing service for an oppressed community without judgment, but as soon as the AIDS crisis hit, that’s when I would start calling your parents real heroes. What they did to help people in that world during that awful time was so touching.

It’s true. That was really important even if they didn’t see it as anything extraordinary. When we look at the history of the Holocaust, there are these people who are called Righteous Gentiles who helped the people who were being persecuted, like the ones who hid Anne Frank and so many others. Those people are often very reluctant to accept any acknowledgement because they simply did what they felt was right. Like, what would you do if your best friend’s daughter was going to get killed? I mean, you would probably think about hiding her in your attic, too, right? It’s a simple thing but it reminds us all that there’s something called humanity here. And the lack of humanity that the gay population saw during the AIDS crisis was just utterly shocking. We look back at that time now, and we’re like, “Wow, really?” Parents didn’t show up for their own dying children and yet they called themselves Christians.

Did you realize what was going on at that time and what your parents were doing to help these people?

I didn’t understand the depth of that pain. My perspective on it as a kid was that I would see these beautiful, funny, amazing gay men who worked at the store who were great people and hilarious. And then, my mom would say, “Oh, well, he’s not here anymore because he died.” This happened again and again but I had this child’s perspective on it that I almost didn’t think twice about until I got older and knew many people who lost so many of their friends. And then when I interviewed my parents for the film and heard these stories, I was just heartbroken. A mother would call my mom and want to know what her son was like. And my mother would think, “Fuck you, lady, he was dying and you refused to fly out here from Idaho to see him when he needed you so badly.” No amount of anti-gay feelings should override parental love to that extent. I wish I could say those sentiments have disappeared today but we know they’re still out there. We’re all aware that there is a powerful Christian right in this country. I was just reading about that hospital in New York that was set up on in Central Park to help with the pandemic but before anyone could work there or be treated they had to sign something saying they agreed with the group’s anti-gay policies.

Horrible.

I do think that’s where heroism comes in. My mom never ran out onto a battlefield to rescue people while bullets were flying, but she helped people who were being treated so cruelly by their own families and our culture. Sometimes it’s the least likely people who decide to stand up and do something right.

I love that analogy to the Righteous Gentiles during the Holocaust. Have your parents ever been honored by any LGBTQ groups?

Oh, God, no. First of all, they weren’t known. My parents were very, very private people, especially my mother. And very behind the scenes. Also because their work was related to the sex industry —

With its own biases and prejudices, forget about the gay part.

Exactly. So they just had their heads down and hoped no one would ever ask them about what they do. My mom would always try to just get past that question very quickly if anyone asked. “We have a bookstore.” That’s why this film is so shocking to their system.

I admit that when I was watching this film, a lot of my tears came from the scene with your brother when he talks about what it was like for him to come out. That was so moving already, but then seeing your reaction as he’s telling his story was even more so.

Those were very real tears for me. When I heard him talk about the day he came out, and how he had gotten a one-way plane ticket because he didn’t know if he’d be accepted by my parents, I was just so horrified, I never knew he had gone through any of that. I had such a different experience growing up. I love my parents, but I was kind of done with them putting any pressures on me. I was always a rebel, my friends were all gay or from the counterculture — I took a girl to prom and no one even said anything about it. And the truth is I was too caught up in my own selfish teenaged world to notice my little brother and his struggles. And then interviewing him at 37 and hearing him talk about 18-year-old Josh being that closeted and afraid, I just had these extreme feelings of shame. I realized I was out there waving my freak flag while poor little Josh was just trying so hard to be that perfect little kid. I think his is the more common story, most people are not artists and weirdos thumbing their nose at society like I was at a young age. I think that’s what gave me a free pass — I never even bothered to come out to them. Josh carried so much pressure to be the perfect child.

That scene is such a touchstone for the film. Do you think the level of secrecy around your parents’ business had repercussions on your family dynamic?

What’s interesting is that despite her work, my mom had all the classic Jewish family values, like wanting us to marry Jewish, have kids, go to college. My mom had all these hardcore expectations for us to get straight As, and nothing was ever good enough. And later I would think, “Why do we have to do all this?” Was it related to the fact that they ran a gay porn shop? She’s never really let go of those expectations to this day, it’s kind of maddening.

I can relate to those Jewish family values that are often bathed in neuroses.

Yeah, like there’s always this element of fear and survival mixed in — like you could get killed at any moment. You might think that you are part of the culture here but just wait until they start attacking Jews, we’ll be the first to be shoved into the ovens. I think that was also part of their fear of being open about what they were doing with the store.

I love all the interviews in the film. It’s amazing to see people like Larry Flynt and gay porn star Jeff Stryker, but what moved me the most is hearing from the old employees. What amazing characters. It’s so great to get their oral histories down from this lost world.

Totally. My dad talks about how important the employees were to people in the community. Like people would know that Gerald was there from four to six so they would go in then. Gerald had his own customers, and then earlier in the day Ben had his own group of customers, it was almost like fan clubs grew around all the different people who worked there. They knew their customers so well and what kinds of things they liked so they would give them a customized experience, like a niche within the niche.

Your mother gets a lot of attention because she’s such a compelling character, but I was so moved by your father as well.

My dad is a guy who just loves life and he’s thrilled at the attention he’s gotten because of the film, the opposite of my mom who is panic-stricken about it. They’re an interesting pair because he is the most happy-go-lucky person I’ve ever known.

I just wish we weren’t in the middle of a pandemic because I would love to see your parents at the screenings with big crowds.

Oh, on that front my mother couldn’t be happier about the pandemic and that she doesn’t have to do anything related to the film. Before the quarantine started, she joked about heading to Antarctica for a month after the film came out and living in an igloo!

youtube

Circus of Books is now available to watch on Netflix.

#Circus of Books #Rachel Mason #Interviews #What's Hot

1 note · View note

coolmohnishahluwalia · 5 years

Text

Discomfort with the truth of Mahatma (GANDHI 150 YEARS: CASTE)

What does he tell the Dalits who are under increased attack by the resurgent caste arrogance? What does he say to a judiciary which puts the liberty of an individual or a people beneath national interest? For him to speak to us, we will also need to earn the right to listen to him

Only one fact about his life was not touched. It was the fact of his death. Another, of course, which led to this end of his life, could not be discussed. That is Gandhi’s constant battle against all kinds of injustices. He was not fighting against the British alone. He was in conflict with his own people

Apoorvanand

On my recent trip to Patna, I was told that the state government was working on a grand plan for the upcoming October 2 celebrations. The date would mark the 150 years of the birth of Gandhi. Of these 150 years, the life of the dead Gandhi is of the length of 72 years. In this afterlife of Gandhi, he has been constantly evaluated, analysed, canonised and memorialised.

The state has been the chief architect of the memory of Gandhi. In his afterlife, the state finally hoped to tame him. The Bihar celebration is one such example. The Government of Bihar called hundreds of teachers to train them to be able to talk to their students correctly about Gandhi. Gandhi was presented as a multifaceted personality and the deliberation sought to turn the exercise into a personality development course. Gandhi the shoemaker, the tailor, the scavenger, a believer in nature cure, conservator of energy, is the Gandhi the state would like the children to talk to. All of us can become Gandhi is the promise of such a course. A lifestyle guru, so to say.

Only one fact about his life has not been touched. It was the fact of his death. Another, of course, which led to this end of his life, could not be discussed. That is Gandhi’s constant battle against all kinds of injustices. He was not fighting against the British alone. He was in conflict with his own people.

Apart from the state, it is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which has sculpted the Indian common sense about Gandhi. A Gandhi who had become a thorn in the flesh of the nation and needed a man of “conviction and courage” like Godse to give India freedom from Gandhi.

India has an ambivalent relationship with Gandhi. It called him Mahatma and also the Father of the Nation but the fact that it could not tolerate him for even six months after it attained Independence from the British has not yet been understood or explained properly. We don’t find it strange that a commission to investigate the assassination of Gandhi could be formed only 18 years after his murder. The murder was more than simply removing Gandhi physically. It was an attempt to derail his project of nation-making, which visualised India as a State where the majority would not dominate the minorities in any manner.

Mind of an assassin

Why I Assassinated Gandhi is one of the most popular books in India, available on all bookstalls on railway platforms, and elsewhere. We are repeatedly asked to understand why a ‘patriot’ like Nathuram Godse was compelled to kill Gandhi. Scholars have laboured to peep into the deep and dark recesses of the mind of Godse, looking for clues or leads which would explain his decision. They have gone to his childhood, talked about his repressed sexuality, etc. to understand his motive. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Godse’s guru, who was behind the conspiracy of the murder of Gandhi, is one of the most venerated men of India, at least among the Hindus. His portrait adorns the walls of Parliament. Long back, the Congress regime itself had decided to honour him by issuing a postal stamp in his name! Yet, the mystery of Gandhi continues to fascinate many, particularly the young, in no small measure. They are far removed from him in time and neither our school textbooks nor our popular culture have been helpful in developing an understanding about him, but he manages to excite their imagination. Even his opponents, who managed to eliminate him physically, cannot ignore him.

India’s continuing engagement with Gandhi reveals more about India than Gandhi. The most recent avatar of Gandhi as the brand ambassador of Swachch Bharat Abhiyaan, the Centre’s official cleanliness drive, is one such example. It was not for nothing that in 2017, the centenary year of the Champaran Satyagraha, using his most significant innovation in the field of political action, satyagraha, the government decided to distort it into swatchagraha.

An annoying presence

It was a clear and clever act of vulgarisation of Gandhi that does not want us to talk about Gandhi’s battle against untouchability and caste discrimination. We are seldom told that caste Hindus were bitter and angry with him for pleading for equal rights for the “shudras”.

Do children know that the pandas of Deoghar had tried to kill him when he went to the Shiva temple as part of his temple-entry movement with Harijans? Two decades later, when his disciple Vinoba Bhave made another attempt, the Deoghar people beat him up so severely that one of his ears was damaged permanently. So, a Gandhi who speaks to us in this language would still be an annoying presence.

A Gandhi who would refuse an invitation for a marriage if it were not between two different castes, one of them to be necessarily a Dalit, would definitely be a bothersome, difficult old man. This is what Helen Cixous, the Italian writer, understood when she wrote that Gandhi was more hated in India than venerated as he sided with the people of the gutter. He has not been forgiven for this audacity.

This discomfort with Gandhi is manifested in the state-led distortion of Gandhi. Its unease with the ‘satya’ of Gandhi is understandable. For Gandhi, violence was untruth, so was a majoritarian nation-state. For him, a Hinduism with caste discrimination was untruth.

Truth, thus, is not a given thing. It has to be imagined and achieved. A truth without an ethical core is no truth. So, if the scriptures justify caste discrimination, Gandhi would rather reject them. He creates his own truth and challenges the established ones. Essentially, Gandhi is a rebel, and an eternal rebel.

One must remember that for Gandhi, after God, another name for Truth, the supreme entity was the individual. He could not allow any authority to have power over the individual. Not even the State of India, freed by his efforts.

It is impossible for a state to be non-violent. Violence is to dominate others. The state cannot resist the temptation to take away the autonomy of the individual. Is it surprising that Gandhi does not want individual freedom to be restrained in any manner? He says that he should have the freedom to build ladders to the Sirius! There cannot be any greater good than human freedom. If the State or any power seeks to curb it, his instinct is to revolt against it.

The eternal rebel

If you force Gandhi to recite the Bhagvada Gita, he would refuse and he would refuse to salute a flag which is thrust on the chest of an unwilling people. He was asked by the Congressmen of Chittagaong on August 14, 1947, if they should salute the flag of Pakistan. He told them not to hesitate in saluting a flag, which would ensure safety and equality for all people under its sway. Once when Vande Mataram was being sung, he remained seated despite others, including Shaheed Suharavardi, standing. He said he had his own way of paying respect and he cannot be forced to adopt the way suggested by any power. When he wrote his Constructive Programme, in the section on students, he made it a point to clearly tell the youth, the eager nationalisers of all times, not to “impose Vande Mataram or the National Flag on others.” Or “not force others” to “wear National Flag button”. When Gandhi speaks thus, how would we respond to him?

So, how does Gandhi speak to us? To the people of Palestine, to the people of Kashmir, to the disenfranchised people of Assam, to the threatened Muslims and Christians of India? What does he speak to a State which is trying to turn people into its subjects? What does he tell the Dalits who are under increased attack by the resurgent caste arrogance? What does he say to a judiciary, which puts the liberty of an individual or a people beneath national interest? For him to speak to us, we will also need to earn the right to listen to him. We have to remain prepared to be challenged by him, questioned by him. #MohnishRANotes

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2oTnGMz via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

aliceviceroy · 6 years

Link

The culprits were obvious: it was the menopause or the devil.

Who else could be blamed, Peter screamed at his wife in nightly tirades, for her alleged insubordination, for her stupidity, her lack of sexual pliability, her refusal to join him on the 'Tornado' ride at a Queensland waterpark, her annoying friendship with a woman he called "Ratface"? For her sheer, complete failure as a woman?

The abuse went on, day and night, as Sally bore a child, worked morning shifts at the local hospital and stayed up late pumping breast milk for her baby.

She was deeply exhausted, depleted and worn.

The night before Sally finally left her husband and the townhouse they lived in on Sydney's northern beaches he told her she was also failing her spiritual duties.

"Your problem is you won't obey me. The Bible says you must obey me and you refuse," he yelled. "You are a failure as a wife, as a Christian, as a mother. You are an insubordinate piece of s**t."

Do you have a story to share? If you are a survivor of domestic abuse in the Church, or have feedback on our series on domestic violence and religion, please get in touch:

[email protected]

Sally, an executive assistant who had just turned 44, stared at him, worrying about whether her neighbours — or her sleeping daughter — could hear his roars through the thin walls.

She knew what had "flicked his switch": the simple act of coming down to say goodnight, which he interpreted as a lack of willingness to have sex.

Peter then opened his Bible and read out some verses:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour." Ephesians 5: 22-23

Next was:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." 1 Timothy 2: 11-12

For years, Sally had believed that God wanted her to submit to her husband, and she did her best, bending to his will and working to pay the bills, despite the pain she was in.

But on this night, she was done. The next morning, she packed up her bags, grabbed some clothes for her daughter and left, taking the little girl with her.

She left everything else behind.

Religion and domestic violence: the missing link

When we speak of domestic violence, and the cultural factors that foment it, one crucial element missing from the discussion has been religion.

While it is generally agreed that inequality between the sexes can foster and cultivate environments where men seek to control or abuse women, in Australia there has been very little public debate about how this might impact people in male-led congregations and religious communities, especially those where women are told to be silent and submit to male authority.

In other countries, like the United States and United Kingdom, there has been extensive analysis. So why is Australia so behind on this issue?

In the past couple of years, concern has been growing amongst those working with survivors of domestic violence about the role the Christian church of all denominations can either consciously or inadvertently play in allowing abusive men to continue abusing their wives.

The questions are these: do abused women in church communities face challenges women outside them do not?

Do perpetrators ever claim church teachings on male control excuse their abuse, or tell victims they must stay?

Why have there been so few sermons on domestic violence? Why do so many women report that their ministers tell them to stay in violent marriages?

Is the stigma surrounding divorce still too great, and unforgiving? Is this also a problem for the men who are abused by their wives — a minority but nonetheless an important group?

And if the church is meant to be a place of refuge for the vulnerable, why is it that the victims are the ones who leave churches while the perpetrators remain?

Is it true — as one Anglican bishop has claimed — that there are striking similarities to the church's failure to protect children from abuse, and that this next generation's reckoning will be about the failure in their ranks to protect women from domestic violence?

A 12-month ABC News and 7.30 investigation involving dozens of interviews with survivors of domestic violence, counsellors, priests, psychologists and researchers from a range of Christian denominations — including Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal and Presbyterian — has discovered the answers to these questions will stun those who believe the church should protect the abused, not the abusers.

'I felt that I was almost being raped'

Sally met Peter when she was in her mid-30s, and had been praying for a husband. She wasn't instantly attracted to him but was charmed by the deluge of flowers and love letters he sent. She grew to believe she was meant to be with him.

She overlooked the fact that she had to buy her own engagement ring and agreed to marry him not long after their meeting.

Peter's personality changed on the first day of their honeymoon, when he yelled at her for sleeping in, and made plans to go fishing for days without her.

Her bible study leader told her later that she looked like the saddest bride he had ever seen.

The abuse quickly escalated as Peter drank, gambled and demanded sex every second night, usually after having yelled at her for hours.

She later wrote in a statement prepared for court: "If I refused, he would become incandescent with rage. It was easier to give in than argue. Those nights I felt that I was almost being raped."

Once he forced her to have sex just three weeks after giving birth.

Sally found little comfort in her Pentecostal church, which she had turned to repeatedly. Counsellors there simply advised her to forgive him. She also told her pastor her story, but no one followed it up.

The violence mounted until one day her husband threw their three-year-old daughter across the room after the toddler accidentally bumped his leg.

When she left Peter, Sally also left her church parish, feeling isolated and unwanted as a single mother.

Ten years later, she is still shattered. She wishes she had heard just one sermon on domestic violence, or had one supportive ear.

The Christian men more likely to assault their wives

The fact that domestic violence occurs in church communities is well established. Queensland academic Dr Lynne Baker's 2010 book, Counselling Christian Women on How to Deal with Domestic Violence, cites a study of Anglican, Catholic and Uniting churches in Brisbane that found 22 per cent of perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse go to church regularly.

But American research provides one important insight: men who attend church less often are most likely to abuse their wives. (Regular church attenders are less likely to commit acts of intimate partner violence.)

Those who are often on the periphery, in other words, who sometimes float between parishes, or sit in the back pews. For these men, the rate of abuse committed is alarmingly high.

As theology professor Steven Tracy wrote in 2008:

It is widely accepted by abuse experts (and validated by numerous studies) that evangelical men who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group (and more likely than secular men) to assault their wives."

Some attribute these findings to the conservative denominations and churches that preach and model male control, with male-only priesthoods and inviolate teachings on male authority.

Adelaide's Anglican Assistant Bishop Tim Harris says, "it is well recognised that males (usually) seeking to justify abuse will be drawn to misinterpretations [of the Bible] to attempt to legitimise abhorrent attitudes."

Stressing that his diocese "strongly rejected" any teachings on male superiority, he told ABC News: "This has been a particular concern for those coming out of evangelical and fundamentalist backgrounds."

In Australia, it is widely accepted that gender inequality is a contributing factor to violence against women.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies probed this question and concluded: "The vital element to consider is the gender norms and beliefs surrounding male dominance and male superiority, created by power hierarchies that accord men greater status."

This is confirmed by global research. A study published in the Lancet in 2015analysed data from 66 surveys across 44 countries, covering the experiences of almost half a million women.

It found that the greatest predictor of partner violence was "environments that support male control", especially "norms related to male authority over female behaviour".

The past two decades of research has also shown women in religious communities are less likely to leave violent marriages, more likely to believe that the abuser will change, less inclined to access community resources and more likely to believe it is their fault; that they have failed as wives as they were not able to stop the abuse.

A culture of victim blaming or shaming can cause women to exit the church entirely. The most common story in the dozens heard by ABC News is that when marriages break, the men stay and the women leave.

The CEO of Safe Steps Family Violence Centre, Annette Gillespie, says that in 20 years of working with victims of domestic violence, she found it was "extremely common" that women will be "encouraged by the church to stay in an abusive relationship".

"I know that for many women the experience of violence was worsened by the lack of support people turned to in the church," she said.

"Often people say it is the guilt of going against the church teaching that leads them to stay in relationships well beyond a time they should leave because they are trying to please the church as well as please their partners … they often feel they will have to choose between leaving religion or violence.

"So when they leave a relationship, they leave a church."

Women in faith communities where divorce is shunned, and shameful, often feel trapped in abusive marriages.

In a submission to the Royal Commission on Family Violence, one Victorian woman wrote that five different ministers had told her to remain with a violent husband.

A church counsellor told her: "Be gentle with him, he's trying to be a man."

This is particularly true in the Catholic Church, where divorce is forbidden, as will be explored in greater detail in an upcoming instalment of this series.

If pastors prevaricate, or fumble, it could be too late. New research finds women in the church usually only go to their pastors when partners do something so violent they fear they will die.

After 25-year-old Wubanchi Asefaw was told by her church leaders to return to her husband in early 2014, he stabbed her to death in their western Sydney home shortly afterwards.

The abuse of the Bible

Unlike the Koran, there are no verses in the Bible that may be read as overtly condoning domestic abuse.

To the contrary, it is made clear that God hates violence and relationships must be driven by selflessness, grace and love.

Confronting domestic violence in Islam

Most Muslims believe Islam abhors violence. So why do some say the Koran sanctions "lightly" beating your wife?

There is no mainstream theologian in Australia who would suggest that a church should be anything but a sanctuary, or that a Christian relationship be marked by anything but love.

But church counsellors and survivors of family violence report that many abusive men, like Sally's husband, rely on twisted — or literalist — interpretation of Bible verses to excuse their abuse.

Baker, whose 2010 book on counselling abused Christian women sprang from years of doctoral research, writes: "biblical principles and scriptures may be used by the perpetrator as a point of authority to condone his actions, or perhaps to 'prove' to the victim that she is not fulfilling her marital obligations."

Abusive men commonly refer to several different parts of the Bible.

First are the verses — cited by Sally's husband Peter, above — telling women to submit to their husbands and male authority, under the doctrine known as male headship.

Second are verses that say God hates divorce.

And third are those in 1 Peter that tell women to submit to husbands in a very particular way, as they follow instructions to slaves to submit to even "harsh masters".

But Denis Fitzgerald, executive director at Catholic Social Services Victoria, says it is crucial for the Bible to be read in light of the culture it was produced in.

"Biblical literalism is not an acceptable approach and part of the teaching role with the bishops is to help the priests and the people to see that texts can't be taken out of context — you have to look at the broader intent and message of the scriptures," he says.

And Simon Smart, the Executive Director of the Centre for Public Christianity points to "what [Croatian theologian] Miroslav Volf describes as the difference between 'thin' and 'thick' religion — where thin religion is stripped of its moral content and used as a weapon for goals completely unrelated to the faith."

The doctrine of male headship: What does it mean?

The doctrine that is most commonly, and controversially cited by abusers is male headship, where a husband is to be the head of the wife in marriage and the wife is to submit, and men are to be head of the church.

What submission means takes many different forms. At its extreme edge, it is complete subservience.

In the 1970s and 1980s, literature coming out of the United States suggested it meant putting up with every possible harm.

According to Elizabeth Hanford Rice in her book Me? Obey Him?, this even included physical violence and child abuse.

Three female authors — Dorothy McGuire, Carol Lewis and Alvena Blatchley — even praised a woman for staying with a man who tried to murder her.

Correct interpretations of scripture are debated in ways not dissimilar to those in the Koran; there is disagreement over translation, hermeneutics, exegesis, the relevance of the culture in which it was written, the then-radical attitudes of acceptance Christ expressed towards women and the role of women in the early church.

These debates hit peak expression in the latter half of the 20th century as most mainstream Christian denominations moved to ordain women to the priesthood, to equal positions to men.

Today, those churches in Australia that do not have women priests include the Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, and the influential Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church.

Some of these groups have responded to the expansion of women's role elsewhere by restricting it further in their own ranks.

Today, it is clear proponents of headship intend to teach a form of self-sacrificial love — for a man to be head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, and to sacrifice himself to his wife in the same way.

But there remains some confusion about what submission actually means.

In 2009, prominent American evangelical pastor John Piper, a frequent visitor to Sydney, was asked, "What should a wife's submission to her husband look like if he's an abuser?"

His response was that if he was "simply hurting her", then she should "endure verbal abuse for a season", and "endure perhaps being smacked one night", before seeking "help from the church".

Almost four years later, he issued a "clarifying statement" in which he called on men in the church to discipline abusers, and uphold "a beautiful vision" of marriage where men lead with gentleness.

Another influential pastor James Dobson has in the past advised women to bait their abusive husbands to goad them into behaving badly, which he believed would shock them into realising they had a problem and agree to counselling.

In 2013, American pastor Steven J Cole concluded in a sermon that "a wife may need to submit to some abuse".

"The difficult question is," he writes, "how much? My view is that a wife must submit to verbal and emotional abuse, but if the husband begins to harm her physically, she needs to call civil or church authorities.

"Although physical abuse is not a biblical basis for divorce, I would counsel separation in some cases to protect the wife while the husband gets his temper under control.

But even in such situations, a Christian wife must not provoke her husband to anger and she must display a gentle spirit."

In 2016, American evangelist Kirk Cameron told the Christian Post: "Wives are to honour and respect and follow their husband's lead, not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband.

"When each person gets their part right, regardless of how their spouse is treating them, there is hope for real change in their marriage."

Time and again in evangelical literature, marital success is predicated on female submission; it is the basis on which women are judged or praised.

In Sydney, as recently as 2015, David Ould, the rector of Glenquarie Anglican Church — also active in the conservative Anglican Church League — asked if it might be "a Godly wise choice" for women to stay with abusive husbands given the Bible teaching in 1 Peter 3, telling wives to submit to their husbands.

These verses follow on from those in 1 Peter 2 that tell slaves to submit to masters — even those who are harsh, or, in other words, physically violent.

Ould, who now works to protect women in his parish and region from domestic violence, later clarified his comments.

He told ABC News his central message was: "I would understand how women would read that passage and choose to stay, but I myself would be urging them to get out and work out what it means from a safe position."

Male headship 'providing the wiring' for abuse

Today, a growing number of counsellors, psychologists and welfare workers are reporting that abusers cite the idea of male headship to sanction violence.

Anglican counsellor from Charles Sturt University Nicola Lock, who has been working with domestic violence cases for 25 years, says the use of headship theology in spousal abuse is "very common".

"Anecdotally, teaching of headship has been seen to be contributing to the problem of domestic violence, both in encouraging abusive male partners, and preventing female partners from challenging abusive behaviours, or leaving an abusive relationship," Lock said.

As Dr Johanna Harris Tyler, a lecturer at the University of Exeter in the UK who was brought up in Sydney Anglicanism, argues: "While male headship may not necessarily trip the switch of abuse, it can provide the wiring."

This is a particularly sensitive point in the Sydney Anglican Church, which is known for its robust advocacy of male headship.

Any suggestion of its abuse usually evokes vehement rebuke and defence from senior clergy. Ministers who uphold headship say their teachings are just being confused with patriarchy, and twisted by those who abuse power.

Those who uphold "egalitarian" views of marriage in this diocese report being sidelined, overlooked for jobs and ostracised.

Some told ABC News they could not publicly state that they believed in equal relationships between men and women, for they would lose their jobs.

And as domestic violence advocate Barbara Roberts points out, in conservative churches women are often taught that desire to overthrow male authority is a sign of sin — thereby making feminism innately wrong.

In other words, if male authority and leadership is from God, any challenge to that is from women's sinful natures — or the devil.

Kara Hartley is the Archdeacon for Women in the Diocese of Sydney and deputy chair of a taskforce looking into church responses to domestic violence.

She stresses there is nothing whatsoever in the Bible to condone abuse, and that men and women just have different roles.

"The responsibility of men is to lovingly, sacrificially care for their wife, and a wife to submit to his care, his leadership, his loving sacrifice to her," Hartley told ABC News.

"Now, for many they'll say that's submission, and therefore headship, [which] creates an imbalance in the marriage. But actually when they're put together, a woman's voluntary … willing submission to her husband, in his loving sacrificial care of her, there's a beautiful picture there."

Sydney Anglican Archbishop Dr Glenn Davies agrees, telling ABC News "submission is never coercive, it's always voluntary, so the wife offers herself in that relationship.

"It becomes dangerous where in a marriage the husband over-reaches and manipulates the woman … it's not submission that's gone wrong, it's the husband that's gone wrong."

It is important to understand, he says, that "there is no way in which we countenance domestic violence in any form be it spiritual, emotional or physical, in our church, we are absolutely opposed to that".

"It's not the teaching, it's the distortion of the teaching which is the problem, I don't believe teaching the Bible produces violence in domestic situations."

But it would be wrong to portray this simply as an issue in Sydney.

The difficulties with the interpretation of headship spreads across denominations.

In February 2016, Catholic bishop Vincent Long cautioned that literal interpretations of the Bible "provide the basis for systematic oppression or structural discrimination of women and lead communities — even church communities — to protecting perpetrators of domestic violence while simultaneously heaping shame and scorn upon its victims".

Others point the finger at all-male leadership.

Sydney psychologist Kylie Pidgeon, who also works with perpetrators and survivors of family violence, wrote in a recent paper that women are more vulnerable in churches where only men lead:

"[Men] occupy the positions of greater power and public influence in a church and hold the offices charged with major decision-making and general oversight of the spiritual health of the congregation. Women usually fill 'support' roles, such as teaching kids' church, reading the Bible, or preparing morning tea. While the intentions of men in positions of leadership are often good; to exercise their authority with love and care, and while a male-led structure by no means guarantees that women will be abused, it is apparent that patriarchal structures place women at greater risk of abuse."

By failing to pastor women, or encourage them to lead or speak, Pidgeon says, male leadership may unwittingly be "giving 'silent permission' to male congregation members to similarly rule over and neglect their wives".

In churches where women are not allowed to speak or preach, they may also worry that they will not be believed.

Erica Hamence, assistant minister at the Anglican St Barnabas Broadway in Sydney, wrote recently that in male-led churches, "women have as much room to speak as the male leaders allow. That's a profoundly vulnerable position to be in, and one which I suspect some male ministers are not always able to empathise with.

"If a woman suffering abuse wasn't completely confident that she would be believed, that the particular nature of the abuse would be understood, and that she would be supported by her church's leader, she would most likely continue to suffer alone."

How do all-male hierarchies respond?

Almost all-male hierarchies are common in many conservative congregations across denominations — Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican and Pentecostal — as are poor responses from pastors.

Susan, a student and mother, went to a Pentecostal Church in Adelaide for most of her married life.

She describes her marriage as akin to a horror story. She says she was "repeatedly raped" by her husband and was continually unnerved by strange incidents that kept happening to her children in her absence.

Bruises appeared, faces were bloodied, weak excuses were given. One day her husband was rebuking his daughter for wearing a revealing top when "she ran and hit the wall" and lost a tooth.

On another day, he pushed Susan out of the car and left her on the side of the road.

A psychologist attached to her church told her divorce was not an option. The pastor's wife told her to separate but not divorce as her husband could change.

It was not until she came across the website, Cry for Justice: Awakening the Evangelical Church to Domestic Violence and Abuse in its Midst, run by Roberts, that she realised it might be possible to divorce her husband.

When she left him, she left her congregation too.

"It was really, really hard to leave the church as I had been there 20 years," Susan told ABC News.

"Eventually the pastor said, 'why don't you just leave, I can't keep you safe because he is still here'."

Her ex followed her to her next church, and tracked down the pastor who told her — after meeting him for coffee once — that her ex was a great guy: "I can see why you married him!"

"Fortunately," she says, "the church I am at now is not very strong on headship, and has a modern attitude to divorce. They won't stand up on stage and say, like they did at the church I attended with my ex-husband, that women should submit and God doesn't want you to divorce."

In Susan's Pentecostal church, the Assemblies of God, only 4 per cent of pastors were female in 2013, and the national executive board was all male.

And, problematically, Pentecostal women are often taught that part of being female is yielding.

Prominent preacher Bobbie Houston told a Hillsong conference in 2008: "[Women are] big, we can step back from an argument. Someone has to step down, to leave a space for God to work, and God put it in feminine DNA to do that."

As documented by Meredith Fraser, female submission is touted in Pentecostalism as a cure-all for marital problems: If women pray, are deferential and submit, there will be hope. The culture of self-sacrifice can be so strong it lends itself to "a certain masochism".

Many Pentecostal women are advised to separate, but never divorce or remarry. They also report being told by their pastors to go home and make love to husbands who torment and terrify them.

Sex is touted as an answer for many marital maladies.

Momentum for change is building

In the past three years, alarm bells have begun to ring about the role religion may play in fostering, or concealing abuse.

There have been two substantial inquiries into domestic violence in Australia in recent years. Both have identified religion as a significant, under-reported problem.

In 2014, the Queensland Government appointed former governor-general Quentin Bryce chair of the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence.

The report, Not Now, Not Ever, tabled in February 2015, pointed to the "challenge" of religious leaders:

"Disturbingly, a number of submissions and individuals reported to the taskforce that the leaders of faith in their particular community would not engage in helping victims or condemn perpetrators of domestic and family violence. These leaders of faith did not see it as the role of the religious gathering to 'lecture' about what happens in the privacy of a home … The taskforce challenges leaders of all faiths and religions to take a leadership role in fostering and encouraging respectful relationships in their community, and to teach their communities and congregations that coercive control and violence are never acceptable."

In the same month, the Victorian Government established the Royal Commission into Family Violence following a series of family violence-related deaths in the state, most notably that of Luke Batty, who was killed by his father in 2014.

It sought to identify the most effective ways to address domestic violence, hold perpetrators accountable, and support victims.

The commission received 968 public submissions and tabled its report in March 2016, which made 227 recommendations. This commission, too, noted as a "challenge" faith leaders who were "predominantly or exclusively men".

For many women who sought help from a faith leader, the commission reported, "the response was inadequate … some faith leaders were uninformed and ill-equipped to respond to such disclosures, 'often the advice given wasn't helpful because the faith leader didn't know what kind of advice to give'."

Examples cited were of religious leaders telling women that their partner's abuse was their fault, or that they should stay in "intolerable" situations.

These responses, with some religious attitudes and practices, the commission found, "risk exposing victims to further and sustained abuse by family members".

In its final report, the commission recommended faith communities examine the ways they respond to domestic violence and whether these practices may deter victims or condone perpetrators.

In other words, whether they conceal, not reveal, abuse.

Within the church, more and more concerned people have begun to recognise the magnitude and seriousness of the problem in their midst, and agitate for change.

Leaders who were previously ignorant or defensive have begun to work to understand the issues; some have been horrified, or at least sobered, to discover the extent of abuse in their midst.

How are churches responding?

A survey of the major Christian churches in Australia has revealed many have developed — or are in the process of developing — formal protocols and resources for preventing and responding to domestic violence in their communities.

Some also require clergy and parish staff to undertake specific domestic violence training, usually run by external providers — though this is often voluntary.

Several churches also reported using guidebooks that advise clergy and pastoral workers on how to recognise and respond to domestic violence and abuse.

One resource, cited by the Lutheran Church and several Anglican and Catholic dioceses, highlights "unequal power relations between men and women" as a root cause of abuse, and specifically calls out the use of scripture as justification for control and abuse as a form of domestic violence.

A progressive group called Common Grace is also working to build a coalition of Christians prepared to speak up about domestic violence.

As Bishop Richard Condie of the Anglican Diocese of Tasmania said:

"The scriptural teaching about male headship in the home would be distorted if it were used to justify control, superiority or violence against women … I encourage my clergy to continue to … speak openly about family violence and domestic abuse in their church communities. We need to be prepared to challenge such behaviours — it cannot be excused or justified."

And, motivated largely by the Royal Commission, Catholic Social Services Victoria in February distributed a domestic violence "resource kit" to parishes.

It includes a statement from the Bishops of Victoria, who condemn domestic violence and call on Catholic Church communities to do more to prevent it — 25 years after their counterparts in America did the same.

"As pastoral leaders in Victoria," the Bishops say, "we reject a reading of scripture that condones domestic violence. A correct reading of scripture leads to an understanding of the equal dignity of men and women and to relationships based on mutuality and love".

'The vast majority of churches are naive'

But critics dismiss these efforts as slow-grinding, insufficiently resourced, too narrow in scope and fundamentally impeded by a lack of female leaders.

Taboos remain intact, the subject is still shrouded with shame, and efforts stymied by misinformation.

Roberts, who was in an abusive marriage for six years, now co-leads the website A Cry For Justice, where victims of domestic abuse can find support and resources and Christian men and women can learn about this issue from a biblical perspective.

She has corresponded with hundreds of thousands of church-going survivors of abuse — with more than a million visitors to her site in the past five years — and says overall, "a few churches are making efforts to tackle it but their efforts are not nearly meeting the need".

And scarcely any churches are taking action at the coalface to tackle the problem.

"Most churches think they deal well with it when a particular case is reported to them," Roberts says.

"But the vast majority of churches are naive about the dynamics of domestic abuse, the mentality of abusers, and the tactics abusers use to manipulate and resist having to take responsibility for their bad conduct."

As for domestic violence experts outside the church, Roberts says, "many churches are wary of [them] because they assume they are all infected with the virus of feminism".

It should be noted that a small number of churches contacted by ABC News either did not respond to repeated requests, or declined to comment on how they were addressing domestic violence, including the Catholic Archdioceses of Sydney, Hobart and Darwin and the Anglican Church of Southern Queensland in Brisbane**.

'I am a wreck of a person now'

What is clear from the women interviewed by ABC News is that they do not resent the church — they urgently seek its reform.

Louise, a mother of five children living in Brisbane, says she is desperate the "church's participation in domestic violence be exposed".

She split from her husband, Bill, 14 years ago, and is still suffering trauma. Bill was her first boyfriend. He charmed her utterly and they married quickly.

Then, from the moment of the marriage, he lost interest in her and frequently erupted in "awful fits of rage". He pinned her up against walls, raped her and controlled her movements.

She was not allowed out on her own, even to do the shopping. For two and a half hours every morning and every night he yelled at her.

Every time she got pregnant, it got worse.

I was sure my husband was going to kill me," she says.

Throughout his tirades, Bill hurled Bible verses at Louise, telling her to obey him, and accusing her of being Hosea's wife — a prostitute.

She longed to kill herself, and one day walked down to the local railway line to throw herself under a train. She had not read the timetable, though, and while she was waiting, her daughter ran from her house and found her.

Turning to look at her daughter, she realised she could not leave her children alone with their father.

Finally, when she was pregnant with her fourth child, she told her pastor what was happening. "I actually got down on my knees and begged, I was so desperate," she says.

The pastor then arranged for someone to interview her 12-year-old daughter to see if Louise was telling the truth. They concluded that Bill just had a bad temper.

When a pastor from their Pentecostal church came to visit, he did not make it past the front door.

"My ex stood up with that look of madness in his face and the pastor ran off with his tail between his legs," Louise says.

Even this did not trigger alarm bells. The attitude of the church, she says, was "cold and callous. Really, really cold".

The next person who came to their house was a Christian lawyer from the church who told her bluntly: "God doesn't like divorce."

Today, more than a decade after her marriage ended, Louise is still shattered.

"I am a wreck of a person now, I don't function very well, I don't see a soul, I don't have a life. I had been isolated for so long, I don't know how to live a proper life."

Sometimes she gets up on a Sunday morning and gets dressed for church, but just sits on the end of her bed.

"I am a bit too scared of pastors, of people," she says.

"We just wanted to do God's will and do what it says in the Bible, and submit to whatever authority. I did believe in female submission — it is meant to be submission to love. It is meant to be a relationship of protection and love."

The path forwards

What is required is substantial cultural change, of the scale that was required for the church to take sexual abuse of children seriously, says retired Bishop John Harrower of Tasmania.

As far back as 2004, he wrote a piece pointing out the parallels between the mistakes the church made over the abuse of children with those they have made over the abuse of women.

The first response of the church was to not hear, to not believe it was happening, he wrote. The second was to treat abuse as "a one-off moral failure", which saw perpetrators moved from state to state, parish to parish, without being punished for their crimes.

Another mistake was to think simply having a quiet word to the abuser and giving advice to the victim to forgive will solve anything, to fail to consult counsellors — and, surely, police.

"We have been tempted", he wrote, "to collude with offenders that their behaviour is nothing more than a matter of private morality".

"If the church colludes in this sleight of hand, it can find itself, as it did in the matter of sexual abuse of children," he wrote, "ignoring the fact that these matters are criminal behaviours; and that they have very real long-term consequences for the victims".

What has been lacking in church communities, counsellors say, as it also is in the broader society, is first, an understanding of the psychology of violent men, and a recognition of how unlikely is it that they can change.

The main problem, Roberts says, is that churches are too easily hoodwinked by the charm and manipulation of abusers:

"Jesus told his followers they needed to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, but most churches are not wise about the mentality and tactics of evildoers, nor are they aware of how evildoers masquerade as believers in the church. The abuser typically has a Dr Jekyll persona that depicts him (or occasionally her) as a wonderful and godly man, so that no-one would suspect the truth … If the victim reports the abuse to church leaders, the abuser is skilled at shifting blame, evading accountability, and pretending repentance and reformation. The vast majority of church leaders aren't discerning enough to detect these tactics of abusers for what they are: lies [and] often advise the victim to remain with or return to the abuser."

Second, is an understanding of what domestic violence is.

A theme common to all of the interviews ABC News conducted with survivors of intimate partner violence was that they did not know what it was they were suffering until they saw a website, or pamphlet, outlining the nature of domestic violence.

This is especially the case for those who were abused not physically but sexually, financially, emotionally and verbally.

Almost every single woman who had experienced abuse in her marriage told ABC News her husband had raped her.

What has also been lacking, according to Anglican Isabella Young, who left her first marriage because of her Christian husband's violence and abuse, and is now actively trying to force the church to take domestic violence seriously by authoring a book on the subject, is a clear indication that abuse is grounds for divorce — not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.

She says: "Confusion still evident among a sizeable proportion of clergy and in published Sydney Anglican Church documents on this issue causes much pain and confusion among abuse victims."

Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies says divorce should be avoided, but that if it could be "proven" that a man had "ignored and overturned his commitment to Christ as a Christian man", divorce could be acceptable.

Abusive clergy moved to different parishes

As was the case with clergy who abused children, clergy who abuse their wives have also been encouraged — or allowed — to move from state to state.

Tabitha, now 59 and living in Sydney, was married to an Anglican clergyman who emotionally, financially and sexually abused her for decades, and who was moved to another part of the country when exposed.

He controlled the music she listened to, the books she read, the wine she drank.

He demanded to know where she was at all times and she was not allowed to use an ATM or drink lemonade without his permission.

He threatened divorce if she cut her hair and constantly accused her of cheating on him. He was angered by the way she put the cereal container in the cupboard, and so wrote on it in firm black letters: "THIS WAY TABITHA".

He was the parish priest. Tabitha's self esteem was steamrollered.

For years she dreamed of leaving, but it was not until he told her, out on a walk one day, that if she did not comply with a "depraved" list of sexual demands, he would divorce her. She refused.

She sought the support of local bishops without luck; they refused to believe he had behaved badly. Her husband moved to another state, to head up another parish.

Today, Tabitha has rebuilt her life, is working and is finally debt free after enduring a financially crippling divorce.

Her two children are almost grown. But she suffers from depression, has no savings and will need to leave Sydney once she retires because she can't afford the rent.

She is lonely, and struggles with feelings of failure. She watches a lot of Netflix.

Sitting at a conference table in her office, sipping tea, a gently spoken Tabitha told ABC News: "Even in the darkest days, I never felt that God had deserted me, only the church.

"In one of the very few major arguments I had with my ex after the split, when he was throwing scripture up at me, I remember yelling at him that this was not God-based or scripturally supported and that God was crying buckets over what he was doing, and how dare he bring God into this situation when it wasn't his fault."

Names have been changed to protect those in this piece who have survived domestic violence.

#misogyny #domestic abuse #fuck christianity #ex-christian

0 notes