Dr. Jarvis J. Williams wrote:
Privileged majority readers often attempt to make their culturally informed readings normative for every community.
However, when privileged people read and listen to racially marginalized voices and (more importantly) study the bible in the same sacred church spaces as racially marginalized voices, then those whose privilege shapes their biblical reading will be more likely to see their privileged blind spots when they humbly submit to and listen to those who don’t share their racially and socially privileged status.
Black and brown bible readers may think that certain biblical and theological truths will be worked out exactly the same way in black, brown, or multi-ethnic contexts as in majority white cultural contexts. Or they might be tempted to think that every white reading of a text is a right reading of a text and non-white readings of texts are wrong or suspicious readings of texts, until receiving a stamp of approval from someone from the white majority interpretive community. Reading black and brown authors who love the bible and labor rigorously to understand it in its original context will help white and black and brown Christians to be sensitive to, and aware of, their blind spots. Every bible interpreter has them and brings them to the text.
Continue reading The Bible is large and contains multitudes: why reading diverse voices is good
1. It’s homophobic and deserving of criticism.
2. Those calling for a boycott are doing it cynically from the right, and don’t actually care about LGBTQ rights.
3. Those sincerely critical of it are not calling for a boycott or Stephen Colbert to be fired.
4. Colbert has consistent homophobic and transphobic sensibilities and has often used gay and trans people as punchlines. The reason (sincere) criticism of this sort of humor is important is not to censor it but to make the comedians involved aware of it, question their own reasons and biases, and hopefully correct it in the future.
5. This isn’t the left ‘tearing itself apart’. This is the right upset that Trump and Putin were targets of criticism and trying to use progressive language for an incredibly narrow purpose, and, short of that, to try to use their own facetious overreactions as evidence of something the matter with people whose ideas and values they disdain. This is the equivalent of a 4chan prank where all of the prank posts and twitter accounts are retroactively taken at face value and pointed to as evidence Justin Bieber fans are stupid or feminists widely support free bleeding. Continue reading Anti-fascism is not mutually exclusive from homophobia
MANY HUMANS SAID
‘This is ridiculous’. As well as a plethora of other boorish things.
I don’t understand what this person is doing wrong here. The question is a valid one: if you are trying not to be a jerk inadvertently, does it matter if a word that sounds offensive has an etymology that isn’t?
In the real world, racists use nigg* words regularly to express and signal their racism, from otherwise made-up terms to ones like niggardly, chosen solely because of its resemblance to the slur.
Continue reading The changing connotations of words isn’t a small issue
LETTER: Sex offender registry makes no sense
I completely disagree. While maybe there are some who shouldn’t necessarily be on the registry, we as parents have a right to know if we have a child rapist living a block over.
I personally had a sex offender living one street over. And his victim was a young boy around my sons age.
This is understandable but not rational. You don’t know what convicted arsonists, murderers, robbers, or burglars live near you. You can’t see all of the people convicted of family violence offenses in the closest apartment complex.
Continue reading The sex-offender registry is mostly about making you feel safer without actually making things safer
A MAN SAID
I saw someone post a thing, “Feminism is not a stick for women to beat other women with.”
I super like and agree.
I also wanted to comment but decided to post my own thing, so I’m not just appropriating someone’s message to women. Feminism is also not a stick to beat men with. Laughing at and demeaning (individual) men in the name of feminism is not feminism. Don’t get me wrong, I do it all the time, but it’s not feminism, it’s just mean.
To your first point: sure. To the second: Maybe? But patriarchy is a gigantic club that beats people up even when left to fall with its own weight, and in most contexts, feminism is more like a ruler.
Continue reading ‘Feminism is not a stick to beat men with’ — because it isn’t a stick
Part One: ‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’
I didn’t really want to get into this to be honest, but quickly since there’s a real contribution here, I think what’s being understated is hyperviolence against women in edgy videogames or other media generally isn’t just an incidental product of trying to titillate, it’s a natural result of the cultural ideas the work is reproducing.
Continue reading ‘Anita Sarkeesian did nothing wrong’, or ‘Violence against women in media, cont.’