Do You See What I See?

Saturday, June 25, 2005

How 'Bout A Bath?

I'm a crier.

I think it stems from this big psychological bone in my body that emphasises with others. I use to be told that tears don't solve anything. I beg to differ - tears show that we can feel. They make physical what we are feeling. They make our feelings real and more than just thoughts. They tell us that no matter what will happen we can feel and we are here, physically, in this moment.

Two articles that have set the wet salty tears streaming down the face in amounts that I think may just break this drought is the source of today's post. Side note: As I have finished my uni classes until the 25th of July, blogging will become more frequent. Especially if The Computer can behave!

The best way to describe the first article is as an autobiographical recount of the moments when a twenty-three year old woman found out she had cancer. Her name is Alicia and she worked as a copy editor for the San Francisco Chronicle. She recounts the moments before her diagnosis and the subsequent emotions as she deals not only with the diagnosis but the various treatments and new 'achievements' as well. A pivotal moment is when she is able to administer her own needle. This recount will not only make you cry for the horrible things this poor young girl has to go through but for anyone who has had a loved one go through some form of treatment, if will be a reminder of their struggle. There is a statement that appears at the end of her last few chapters that states:
Alicia Parlette will then write occasionally about her life and her battle with cancer
that really set me off on the Road To Being Bathed In Tears. I fear for the day that I read that she has lost her battle with cancer. I don't know this girl but I have cried at every emotion she has experiences. I want to take away her pain but I am just useless.

The second article is an exploration of one of the real effects of the War in Iraq - the children who have lost mothers and fathers. The children whose father never got to hold them because they were born as their parent were in a war zone. One of the common things I hear from people who believed in this war was that it will leave its mark on history that people will look back on as something positive. I disagree. I think history will show us the futility of this war and that all these children have lost the physical existence of their parents in their lives because we sent them off to this war. How can you tell a child that their father or mother died helping their country when they can't get a hug from their Mummy or Daddy on their birthday or to see their child on their wedding day or when they graduate from high school or university. What will we say to those children when they are adults and we are looking back on our actions as Westerners in two decades. I do not know. All I know that of this time in the year 2005, I am sorry.

Monday, June 13, 2005

The Creation of Religion

Thankfully the issue of Creationism vs Evolution in schools has not come up in Australia in the way that it is commonplace in America with issues such as Kansas placing stickers that state that Evolution is just a theory and the subsequent removal of these stickers as well.

Pharyngula has an interesting post about the actions of a Virginian schoolteacher who created his own Creationist textbook that was 'optional' but received extra credit.

One of my issues with people who feel the need for their own religious beliefs to be taught in public schools is would they be so 'needing' of freedom of speech/expression if another parent/teacher wanted their Satanist or pagan views to be taught to their children in a public school.

Which brings me to something that has been hanging in my head for quite a while. As it is well documented here, I went to a religious school. I graduated in September/November 2004 and after that time began to keep track of various Christian/Catholic blogs and news sites to get their point of view on issues just to see what the 'other half' is thinking as I don't have my 'everyday access' to it as I use to. It is quite funny that after being in direct contact with Christians/Catholics for thirteen years, I have worked out that my Catholic education was very open and very accepting. Now when I read the daily ramblings of these 'Catholics' who ironically don't display very 'Christian' attitudes, my dislike for the Catholic Church's point of view has grown into utter annoyance for the denomination as a whole. I try to be open and not bias but the attitudes towards others that these people display just utterly disgusts me.

Linking back to the original point - why is it that a child can be described as a 'Catholic child' but you never hear a description of a 'Marxist child' or a 'Fascist child' or a 'Socialist child' - are they not both doctrines? I do not understand why religion is placed on a pedestal' above every other feature in society as though it is the be all and end all. Why is it alright to 'indoctrinate' our children with 'Catholic', 'Jewish', 'Muslim' ideals but not 'Fascist' or 'Marxist' ideals? I would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

The Skirt Is The Root Of All Problems

Whilst reading of the young American student who has gone missing in Aruba on a school graduation trip, I came across this article from the 'good people' at that "Fair and Balanced" Fauxnews.

Those good people have solved the big question of why this girl went missing and I don't understand why no one else has seen this:
Dressed in the same blue-and-green striped, low-cut blouse and denim miniskirt that she wore at the beach earlier in the day

Now that explains it all.

Seriously though, why does it matter that her top was "low cut". I can just imagine someone who thinks that they have seen Natalee but "oh, I don't think that is a low-cut top". What irritates me is the insinuation about her clothing - we have an eighteen year old female in a foreign country who has gone missing but we have to be informed that rather than just a blue and green striped top, we need to know that it was "low cut".

This language use and insinuation is common and that is what is most frightful. It stems from the "unvictimisation" that a victim of rape will experience. When a person is robbed they are rarely, if ever, asked whether they fought off the attacker. We don't hear about the fact that they may have had their bag open, just 'asking' to be robbed. However, when a woman is raped they are asked whether they fought off their attacker because of course every woman is just rearing to have unconsensual sex. Add that to the common incident of their clothing being 'alluring', 'enticing', heck YELLING for them to be raped and the blatant sexism that is so rampant and unchecked in society lives on.