A Brief Reflection on Bro Culture

From my general experiences there are two types of bro culture: Negative and Positive

Negative Bro Culture:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1997489,00.html

The heavy-drinking, women-are-objects bro culture. It glorifies traditional masculinity and if you do not fit into that, you are a "pussy" (a term that already speaks volumes of the misogyny). The TIME article references a craze known as "Icing", in which Bros force other Bros to down Smirnoff Ice, a drink often associated with femininity and not being able to handle the (excessive) heavy drinking of Bros. It is a de-masculinating "game", and further sets to prove that if you are not a Bro you are a "pussy". Clearly nothing good can come from this sort of Bro Culture. The community created is one where you can never let your guard down and always have to be hypermasculine, hypersexual, hyperintoxicated, and flat out stupid.

Positive Bro Culture:

If negative bro culture got anything right, it was the sense of community. Bros always defend other Bros, no matter what. There has been an offshoot of the negative bro culture that focuses on the tight-knit community aspect of relationships and not the hypermasculine features. Bros (which, in this culture, can be both female and male) are there for support on all issues and provide a good social group to spend time with and develop relationships. Certain things, like sports, videogames, and rock music, are heavily tied to all Bro Culture, but in Positive Bro Culture, they do not serve as hyper-competitive devices, but are used for social interaction. Phrases like "Bros for Life" emphasizes this, and a strong support group is valuable to any human flourishing.

If we can reshape the public's image of bro towards the positive image, the negative bro image will diminish. Heavy partying and misogyny are only consistent with frat-boy negative bro culture, and no thinking person should support this. It breeds violence and hatred of women, and those things are not conducive to a productive society.

Sometimes these two groups are conflated. We have the positive bros getting mixed in with the negative bros, and finding the tight-knit community worth the excessive partying. This is why we must draw the line. We must encourage tight-knit communities that do not engage in excessive alcohol consumption and misogyny. If we let our young people become engulfed in negative bro culture (as often happens), we have to fight a much harder battle. Stopping negative bro culture at its source, impressionable male youth, will go a long way in fighting misogyny. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julia Sweeney: The Women of the New Atheism Movement

The New Atheist Movement is often accused of being entirely older Caucasian men and lacking any real diversity. (This is often based on looking only at prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, etc.) However, this criticism has come up lacking with the efforts of two prominent women in the movement: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julia Sweeney

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia into a Muslim family. Her father opposed the practice of genital mutilation, but while he was away her devout grandmother had the "procedure" enacted on her. In her early schooling, she was introduced to a religion teacher that encouraged her all-girls school to adopt a more steadfast version of Islam. Ali practiced this for a while, but became aware of the male-dominated society she lived in. When she was forced to marry her distance cousin who, as she put it, "made her body go cold", she fled to Holland where she able to gain political asylum. Working her way from the ground up, she went to school and became educated, eventually leaving her Islamic faith behind for Atheism. She served in the Dutch Parliament and now runs her foundation, the AHA Foundation, which protects those who are critical of Islam and promotes the open exchange of ideas. She has been an activist against the practices of genital mutilation and women's oppression in fundamentalist Islamic countries and around the world.

Julia Sweeney is a comedian who is famous for her series Letting Go of God, in which she takes any compliant listener through the journey of her evolution from faith to lack-thereof. She brings a lighter side to the often philosophy/science driven discussion of belief and presents her life story in a fun, comedic way. She has been apart of large Atheist meet-ups, including those with the famous Four Horsemen of Atheism (Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris) and has made huge strides in appealing to reason and emotion in atheism.

While I think it is important to recognize these two women for their work in the often male-dominated New Atheist Movement, it is just as disheartening that they have to be recognized as the Women of the New Atheist Movement. It truly shows how male-dominant our culture is, even in academia or intellectual discussion. Both Ayaan and Julia have made fantastic contributions to the New Atheist Movement, and as a huge fan of both their work, I hope it levels the playing field so I do not feel compelled to talk about the 2 Women of Atheism and make the gender-divide apparent. It is sad that they are truly different in the New Atheism Movement because they are women, and hopefully the community will embrace more women and become a truly equal movement. 

Dolce and Gabbana; Edgy or Exploitative?

http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/dg-queers-advertising-yet-again/
(please refer to the link for two video ads by D&G)

Is this ad a double edged sword?

Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), as well as the majority of the high fashion world, prides itself on its edgy appeal. Here we have an ad with what appears to be one (or four men, I cannot honestly tell) man in a lavishly designed suit kissing the hand of himself (or another man). We could interpret this ad as not explicitly homosexual for two reasons:
1. The man is kissing his own hand.
2. Kissing a hand is a sign of respect, regardless of sex.

However, if we do interpret the ad to have some homoerotic ideas, or at least the allusion of homosexuality, I am at once joyous and offended. On the surface, it would seem a good thing that D&G is not ignoring the existence of homosexuality and, in fact, bringing it to the forefront of the conversation. At the same time, we must wonder if they are exploiting homosexuals and homosexuality by being unaware of their stature and the view of the general public.

Maybe it is just because I grew up in the Midwest, but Dolce & Gabbana is considered a luxury that need not be had or, more harshly, as a "queer-loving fashion faux pas of an organization" (direct quote from a family member). In any case, it is considered too edgy for its own good. When it is paired with homosexuality, it makes homosexuality seem too edgy for its own good and further deepens the oft-accepted practice of bigotry against homosexuals.

Now I must concede a few points: this ad probably did not run in the Midwest. However, the Super Bowl ad on the provided link ran everywhere. I can understand it as a slap-in-the-face to bigotry by D&G, and while that is commendable, the bite back of the conservative right affects people's lives. We only need to look at the  Prop 8 vote in California for a pertinent example, wherein the right to marriage was taken away from same sex couples. We only need to look at the majority of America, whose states deny that right in an overwhelming majority. My worry is that the D&G ads push homosexuality further to the edge. While I like to see the LGBT being represented in ads, this ad is only self-serving (I guess as most ads are) and not socially conscience. 

Why Nuns are better than Priests (or at least this nun)

After reporting the story of a St. Louis-area Bishop who disparaged atheists at my alma mater, I was offered the opportunity to speak at the Ethical Society of St. Louis. Since it was a big opportunity for me, I immediately created a Facebook event and invited all of my friends, as any tech-savvy kid would do these days. In my excited state, I may have forgotten that I have quite a few bigoted friends from my Catholic high school days who hate atheism and atheists. So the epic debate ensued, via Facebook, and one part in particular struck a chord.

Among those virtually protesting my event were 3 boys preparing for religious life. One is a current Seminarian, another is studying to become a Jesuit, and the third is discerning his "call" to the priesthood. All three of them were rather quick to show the love of Jesus by bashing myself and my message. If they had read the description on the event page, they would have found that I have no plans to bash their religion (Catholicism in all cases), but to open the door for interfaith dialogue between the religious and the non-religious. In their haste, they made insensitive and inaccurate comments and have (for the most part) ceased their arguments.

Amidst all this disorder and chaos, another person interested in the religious life stepped forward and offered the message of compassion that Jesus of Nazareth brought. She called for an open exchange of ideas and to show a loving attitude towards all. In the truest sense, she brought wisdom and acceptance to her fellow religious life friends and admitted she planned to attend the event to find just the same things she brought to the wall post.

Now it is obviously an overstatement to say nuns are better than priests. But this (future) nun sure showed more understanding then her male counterparts. Maybe the Catholic Church should remember that the most revered among them do not always have to be men.

Women's Rights Defunded by House

On Friday, the House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood as an amendment to the Healthcare Reform Legislation. The issue has generally been stated by conservatives to be about the taxpayers funding abortion clinics. Conservative pundits and representatives have come out against this sort of funding, claiming the American taxpayer should not have to pay for abortion as it is not primary healthcare and is wholly against their moral or ethical beliefs.

I would be more sympathetic to these pundits if the allegations covered the issue entirely The debate as to whether abortion clinics should be funded by the federal government is a worthwhile debate to have. I believe that not funding organizations like Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights, unfairly discriminates against underprivileged classes in fulfilling their right to reproductive choice. It is apparent that there could be a debate about this, but cutting funding to Planned Parenthood is more devastating than this.

Planned Parenthood provides all sorts of sexual health care at little to no cost to underprivileged women, including pap smears, sexual education, and birth control. In some cases, they also provide general OB/GYN services to women regardless of financial stability. This amendment to the Healthcare Reform legislation denies women their right to seek healthcare regardless of financial status, and I think it is highly illegal under the new legislation and against common sense. Everyone should be entitled to healthcare regardless of social status; it is an inalienable a right as any other.

So the conservative agenda needs to realize that it is not fighting against abortion. It is denying women their right to healthcare. They have conflated a very important issue and have managed to get it passed to the Senate. Let us hope that President Obama and the Senate stop this in its tracks.

Tough Guise: HxC bands

The picture above is a band called Skylit Drive, a 6 piece hardcore (HxC) band from Lodi, California. As you can see, those guys look tough. A new type of masculinity, even if it involves long hair and huge earrings. The hardcore music scene prides itself on being tough. It has...

Mosh Pits, where people often get injured...

Zero gauges and tattoos. and Let's not forget...

Blood, "power stances", vocals involving screams and "pig squeals" (gutterall throat sounds).
The whole guise is tough. Sometimes even, the guys are physically tough. I used to play in a hardcore band wherein I would get physically beat up in mosh pits. I must admit I sort of enjoyed it, but not in a masochistic way. I enjoyed sports all my life, and moshing was just like getting hit in football or checked in lacrosse. It meant you were playing hard and having a good time. But I think the difference in the hardcore movement (for the most part) and other tough guises is that most HxC people truly care.

Take A Skylit Drive. Mike "Jag" Jagmin, the lead singer, is a vegetarian and strong political activist. He has worked extensively with peta2, and often defends his vocal style (a high-pitched range spanning three octaves) against those who want him to be more "masculine". Many hardcore bands are also "Christian" bands that preach love and peace, like The Devil Wears Prada. Their guitarist also works with PETA. Maybe this is just a function of the post-hardcore movement and our new, progressive understanding of the world, but let us not forget that under the tough guise we have some truly tough guys; tough on injustice. There are still those just looking to pick a fight, in fact, sometimes the music itself suggest that, which cannot be endorsed. But the positives are also very prevalent in bands like A Skylit Drive and The Devil Wears Prada.

The Anti-Abortion Moniker rolls on...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-southdakota-abortion-idUSTRE71E67N20110215



So the proposed bill up for debate in South Dakota would include "defending the life of an unborn child" as justifiable homicide in the state. Opponents are strongly against the bill, as they believe it paves the way for "justified" killing of abortion doctors and clinic workers. Defendants say they are protecting pregnant women from attacks against the fetus in their womb.

From what I have seen of the proposed legislation, the law would allow a woman or anyone intimately tied to that woman to murder the abortion doctor if he was to advocate for or be prepared to give an abortion. Now, I cannot think of many instances where a woman would want to kill the abortion doctor they sought out for their abortion. But the amount of emotional trauma that comes with an event like that is not any place to be allowing "justified" killing. This also opens the door for family members (or a "mistress, master, or servant") to "defend" the woman by killing the abortion doctor.

First of all, we should not be legally stigmatizing abortion. A willing woman and her partner who want to have an abortion are legally allowed to do so (Roe v. Wade decision) and no law should prevent that. While I am certainly an advocate of womens' rights, I am not advocating that we give the right of murder to anyone. This law would put abortion doctors at an increasingly high risk of attack (the ACLU is already on it) and we do not want another Dr. Tiller incident. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller) Religious nutjobs will do what they want, but we should not be making that legal. Yes, the law prospectively would defend a pregnant woman for killing anyone who tried to kill her fetus. I could support that, but you have to word laws very specifically so no one can justify killing abortion doctors for their practice.

Whether you are for abortion or not, this is no way to go about stigmatizing the practice. Killing the abortion doctor just adds to the cycle of violence and hurts the family of that physician irreparably.