Fr. Richard Rohr - Jesus Is Not Loyal to One Religion

 

Fr. Richard Rohr is a Franciscan priest of the New Mexico Province and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation (www.cac.org) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Fr. Richard's teaching is grounded in the Franciscan alternative orthodoxy--practices of contemplation and lived kenosis (self-emptying), expressing itself in radical compassion, particularly for the socially marginalized. As a teacher, he bears witness to the universal awakening within Christian mysticism and the Perennial Tradition.

Among Fr. Rohr's many books are Immortal Diamond: The Search for Our True Self (2013),
Yes, and...: Daily Meditations (2013), The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See (2009), and From Wild Man to Wise Man: Reflections on Male Spirituality (2005).

A Central Point!

Meditation 38 of 51 - Seven Themes of an Alternative Orthodoxy
Sixth Theme: The path of descent is the path of transformation. Darkness, failure, relapse, death, and woundedness are our primary teachers, rather than ideas or doctrines (Process).

Why does the Bible, and why does Jesus, tell us to care for the poor and the outsider? It is because we all need to stand in that position for our own conversion. We each need to stand under the mercy of God, the forgiveness of God, and the grace of God—to understand the very nature of reality. When we are too smug and content, then grace and mercy have no meaning—and God has no meaning. Forgiveness is not even desired. When we have pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps, religion is always corrupted because it doesn’t understand the mystery of how divine life is transferred, how people change, and how life flows. It has been said by others that religion is largely filled with people who are afraid of hell, and spirituality is for people who have gone through hell.

Jesus is always on the side of the crucified ones. He is not loyal to one religion, or this or that group, or the “worthy” ones—Jesus is loyal to suffering itself, wherever it is. He is just as loyal to the suffering of Iraqis or Afghanis as he is to the suffering of Americans. He is just as loyal to an oppressed gay man as he is to an oppressed married woman. We do not like that! He grabs all of our self-created boundaries away from us, and suddenly all we have is a free fall into the arms of God, who is our only and solid security. This seems to be God’s very surprising agenda, if I am to believe the Bible.

Adapted from A Lever and a Place to Stand: The Contemplative Stance, the Active Prayer (CD)

The Daily Meditations for 2013 are now available in Fr. Richard’s new book Yes, And . . .

Actor/Comedian Russell Brand Calls for Global Political Revolution on the BBC

Russell Brand calls for global political revolution on the BBC

Damn Straight!

I've always enjoyed Russell Brand's comedy when he was not being raunchy - like Eddie Izzard, he has the ability to use his intelligence in his comedy in a way that might limit his audience (although no one is as good as Izzard).

In the last year or two, Brand has been putting his intelligence and progressive political views on display in his own television show, Brand X with Russell Brand. His 2012 conversation with the Dalai Lama at a youth event went viral (His Holiness stole the laughs).

In a new video that has gone Super Viral, Brand has declared his vision for a revolution, a global political revolution that is necessary because we now have a ruling class that is only concerned with maintaining their power and wealth, not serving the people.

Brand has a foundation, as the child of a messed up family, for his progressive political views, despite the fact that he is now a wealthy man. He has not forgotten where he came from and he is able to see the corruption that supports a small elite class and a large underclass . . . because he comes from the underclass. Here is some of his background from Wikipedia:

Russell Edward Brand was born in Grays, Essex, England. He is the only child of photographer Ronald Henry Brand and Barbara Elizabeth Nichols.[4] Brand's parents divorced when he was six months old, and he was raised by his mother. He has described his childhood as isolated and lonely.[5] When he was seven, a tutor sexually abused him.[6] When Brand was eight, his mother contracted uterine cancer and then breast cancer one year later.[7] While she underwent treatment, Brand lived with relatives.[7] When he was 14, he suffered from bulimia nervosa. When he was 16, he left home because of disagreements with his ill mother's live-in partner.[7] Brand then started to use illegal drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines, LSD, and ecstasy.[7]

In an interview on National Public Radio's Weekend Edition Saturday, Brand says he had a strange relationship with his father, whom he saw sporadically and who took him to visit prostitutes during a trip to the Far East.[8]
___ 

Brand has been a vegetarian since the age of 14[67] and a vegan since October 2011.[68] He dresses in a flamboyant bohemian fashion, describing himself as looking like an "S&M Willy Wonka".[69] He has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar disorder.[70] He has also suffered from bulimia[67] and went through a period of self-harming.[71] Brand has shown interest in the Hare Krishna Movement and chants the Hare Krishna mantra for drug rehabilitation.[72] During an interview with Ellen DeGeneres on her show in October 2010, Brand talked about his love of Transcendental Meditation.[73][74][75]

Two key quotes from the interview on BBC:

“The planet is being destroyed, we are creating an underclass, we're exploiting poor people all over the world and the genuine, legitimate problems of the people are not being addressed by our political class.” 
___

“By spiritual I mean the acknowledgement that our connection to one another and the planet must be prioritised.”

“The revolution of consciousness is a decision, decisions take a moment. In my mind the revolution has already begun.”

He demonstrates here a progressive perspective and a certain degree of naivete, which is probably necessary for one to become the spokesperson for a revolution. There is also the evidence here of his spiritual practices. Here is a quote from the beginning of that essay:

I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites. Billy Connolly said: “Don’t vote, it encourages them,” and, “The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one.”

I don’t vote because to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance; I know, I know my grandparents fought in two world wars (and one World Cup) so that I’d have the right to vote. Well, they were conned. As far as I’m concerned there is nothing to vote for. I feel it is a far more potent political act to completely renounce the current paradigm than to participate in even the most trivial and tokenistic manner, by obediently X-ing a little box.

Total revolution of consciousness and our entire social, political and economic system is what interests me, but that’s not on the ballot. Is utopian revolution possible? The freethinking social architect Buckminster Fuller said humanity now faces a choice: oblivion or utopia. We’re inertly ambling towards oblivion, is utopia really an option?

Read his full commentary (4,500 words) on a revolution in consciousness at the New Statesmen.

Russell Brand Calls for Global Political Revolution on the BBC

By Dell Cameron on October 24, 2013 


Russell Brand wants to launch a global political revolution or, at least, instigate one.

During a Thursday night interview on the BBC’s Newsnight, the actor and comedian told Jeremy Paxman that traditional political structures should be razed, since they’ve consistently failed to respond to vital global economic and environmental issues.

On YouTube, the BBC promoted the video as if it were a boxing match, “Paxman vs Brand.” If so, Brand scored an easy knockout.

Earlier this week, political magazine New Statesman appointed Brand as a guest editor. He used the opportunity to published a 4,500 word essay that uses the word “revolution” 12 times.

In the piece, Brand says that he doesn’t vote and claims he never has.

“Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites,” he writes.

When Paxman asked if he was advocating revolution, Brand explained, “The planet is being destroyed, we are creating an underclass, we're exploiting poor people all over the world and the genuine, legitimate problems of the people are not being addressed by our political class.”

During the broadcast, Paxman seemed genuinely perplexed as to how Brand could make such strong political statements, given his non-existant voting record, and accused Brand of being "trivial."

Brand responded, “It’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy, I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations.”

When asked what his ideal political system would look like, Brand admitted he didn’t have all the answers, but he quickly shot off a list of reasonable qualifications: “Shouldn’t destroy the planet; shouldn’t create massive economic disparity; shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people.”

More specifically he called it a “Socialist-egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibility for energy companies… exploiting the environment.”

“Do you see any hope?” Paxman asked Brand at the end of their interview.

“Totally. There’s going to be a revolution. It’s totally going to happen.” Brand responded.

In the New Statesman, Brand declares his allegiance to the leftist political ideologies and attacks conservatism, “The right has all the advantages, just as the devil has all the best tunes. Conservatism appeals to our selfishness and fear, our desire and self-interest; they neatly nurture and then harvest the inherent and incubating individualism.”

But, he also claims the “solution” must also be spiritual, something he admits is often at odds with leftist principles. He explains, “By spiritual I mean the acknowledgement that our connection to one another and the planet must be prioritised.”

“The revolution of consciousness is a decision, decisions take a moment. In my mind the revolution has already begun.”

The Newsnight interview was not the first time Brand has drastically overmatched the hosts of a news program. In June, he made headlines for excoriating the gang on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," in an appearance the Washington Post called "devastating."

Photo via Russell Brand (Remix by Dell Cameron)

Hmmm . . . There were some things I liked about the original Tough Guise, and there were some things that really bothered me about that film. It felt to me that Jackson Katz fails to understand the complexity of the issue he was addressing. I wrote this back in 2009:

I have my issues with Jackson Katz’s “Tough Guise” video - it feels to me like the pathological side of the postmodern, relativist developmental stage, otherwise known as the Mean Green Meme in integral circles. I'm not sure such a beast actually exists (see here), but there does seem to be a tendency in this developmental stage - which is focused on group harmony, expression of emotion, and other communal manifestations of development - to reject any and all expressions of violence. I'm not sure this is realistic.

While as a Buddhist I reject violence, this is not necessarily a universal belief, even among Buddhists. Many hundreds of years have shown that Buddhists will take violent action in order to protect the weak and the dharma - the killing of a few to save the many has been the argument.

When the Chinese invaded Tibet, the few "soldiers" that existed tried in vain to fight off the invaders. This might be seen as the dark side of the complete opposition to violence and force. If they had taken seriously the realities of a world in which not everyone shares their values of peace and compassion, they might have been more prepared to defend those values by whatever means necessary.

Perhaps this is not good Buddhist doctrine. Or perhaps this is a more integral understanding of the need for right use of force. The "right use" part is crucial - I am not for the glorification of violence in film and TV. I do not think that boys should be taught that violence is how to resolve issues. I do not think that the military should be deployed unless our borders are threatened or unless we can protect the weak from genocide by the few who are ignorant and violent.

But I do know that we should be able to defend ourselves and those we love if there is no other option. Is there ever a time when there is no other option? I'm not sure.

So I'm not sure how I feel about his making of a sequel, from which there is a short clip below. Maybe over the past 14 years he has become more accepting that there are some masculine traits that are results of our biology and hormones . . . and evolution. That we still have these traits when they have ceased be relevant does not mean that they are wrong.

Whether violence is wrong or necessary depends on the context.

'Tough Guise 2': The Ongoing Crisis of Violent Masculinity

In a follow-up to his powerful 1999 documentary, Jackson Katz argues that men are actively taught to be violent creatures.

October 24, 2013 • By Lisa Wade

A still from Tough Guise 2. (PHOTO: COURTESY OF JACKSON KATZ)

In 1999 Jackson Katz headlined a documentary that powerfully revealed the mask of masculinity, a pretense of stoicism and readiness for violence that many men feel compelled to put on, at least part of the time. The film, Tough Guise: Violence, Manhood, and American Culture, became a staple in classes on gender across the country.

It’s no use arguing whether the media, the military, or the gun industry are responsible for rates of violence, he observes, since they’re in cahoots.

Last week marked the release of Tough Guise 2 and SocImages was given the honor of debuting an exclusive clip from the new film. In the segment below, Katz explains that men aren’t naturally violent but, instead, often learn how to be so. Focusing on socialization, however, threatens to make invisible the socialization agents. In other words, Katz argues, men don’t just learn to be more violent than they otherwise would be—they are actively taught.

He begins with the fact that the video game and film industries both take money from companies that make firearms to feature their products. The U.S. military then uses the video game Call of Duty for recruitment and training. It’s no use arguing whether the media, the military, or the gun industry are responsible for rates of violence, he observes, since they’re in cahoots. These extreme examples intersect with the everyday, mundane lessons about the importance of being “real men” that boys and men receive from the media and their peers, parents, coaches, and more.

This update of the original will tell the compelling story about manhood and violence to a new generation and remind older ones of the ongoing crisis of masculinity in America.



This post originally appeared on Sociological Images, a Pacific Standard partner site.

James Fell Meditates . . . While Lifting Heavy Things

James Fell shared this article over at the Good Men Project, a reflection on his exploration of meditation to help him focus and relax while trying to run a 3:25:00 Boston Marathon. I don't know if he made his time, but he learned a lot about his own approach to meditation.

Like James, I tend to be most focused and in the present moment (other than during sessions with my therapy clients) while lifting heavy weights. There is nothing like a heavy squat day to keep your mind focused in the moment . . . failing to do so could mean serious injury.


One of the thought leaders in this field is Rob McNamara, author of Strength to Awaken, Make Strength Training Your Spiritual Practice and Find New Power and Purpose in Your Life (2011). You can listen to (or read) a nice conversation with Rob (conducted by Vince Horn) over at the Buddhist Geeks Podcast.

How the Universe Responded When I Tried Meditation

October 19, 2013 by James Fell

James Fell meditates. He just happens to be lifting heavy things while he does it.

That’s the last time I listen to Jane Seymour.

It was her idea. She was telling me about how great Transcendental Meditation is, and how after a 20 minutes session she obtains amazing powers of concentration. She also told me that her son, a musician, does TM right before performing; again, to help with concentration.

It got me thinking that perhaps it was worth a shot. Not because I have trouble sleeping (I don’t), or that I’m stressed out (I’m not), but because if it actually does help the mind relax and focus, then perhaps it would be something that could get me in the proper headspace immediately before my attempt to qualify for the Boston Marathon this fall.

I’m learning that concentration is going to be key. I can’t just power my way through this like I did in Los Angeles last year. In the past few months I’ve learned a great deal about proper running technique, and being able to hold form and run in as efficient a manner as possible is critical to sustaining the 4:40 per kilometer pace (roughly a seven-and-a-half minute mile) for the entire 42.2km in order to finish in under the required 3 hours and 25 minutes to meet the Boston Athletic Associations time requirements for my age group.

Sorry about all that metric stuff for my American readers. I know it weirds you out, but I’m running this race in Canada, so I need to think in kilometers. If you get confused, there’s an app for that.

Anyway, maintaining proper form and pace takes a lot of concentration, and when I run my mind has a tendency to wander. I used to listen to music all the time while running, but had to stop that because it hampers the ability to concentrate. Music is great for beginner and intermediate exercisers; it helps them create a “dissociative state,” which means it distracts them from the discomfort of training and allows them to push harder and longer. However, when you get to an advanced level, music actually inhibits running performance. To go to the wall, you need to be in an “associative state,” which is like embracing the pain, or something. (Read my entire article for the Chicago Tribune about using music for fitness motivation here).

And I’ve been doing some runs at marathon pace and putting all of my brainpower into expending as few calories as possible. This isn’t about fat loss – if I was chasing that an inefficient technique where I ran like I had a scorpion shoved down my running shorts would be the best way to maximize caloric burn per mile. It’s about enhancing my ability to sustain the fastest pace possible for the full distance, and to do that I need to not waste a single iota of energy. It means perfect form, with minimal vertical movement, a soft landing on each stride. A glide like I’m on a low-flying magic carpet.

Yeah, gotta think about all that. Get to the meditation part.

As a confirmed skeptic, I don’t go in for what Eric Cartman would refer to as “tree-hugging hippie crap,” so I began my investigations in to meditation not by going to any official Transcendental Meditation site, but by reading what others outside the organization had to say, and I found this story, which automatically put my guard up. Meditation may be valuable, but I balk at lining someone’s pockets with thousands of dollars to lead me down the garden path and off the deep end into mystical bullshittery.

I’m a pretty good do-it-yourself learner, and I didn’t think I needed some $2,500 yogi-guided course to learn how to relax and enhance my concentration. So I searched some more, and came across this article at “How Stuff Works.” It seemed pretty basic, but since I wasn’t trying to learn brain surgery I figured basic = good enough.

I should mention that during this whole learning process I was sitting on the deck at my parents’ condo on the coast of B.C. with my wife. She wanted to give it a whirl too, so I read her the basic instructions I found at How Stuff Works and we decided to try it and see what happened.

The first thing I noticed was that there was too damn much stuff to remember. Breathe in and pretend like it’s a lotus blossom opening in your stomach, and then the lotus blossom closes when you breathe out. Let your mouth hang partially open. Don’t close your eyes, but don’t focus on anything either. Imagine some kind of totem image in your mind. Repeat your mantra over and over. (TM says you’re supposed to get your mantra given to you from an official yogi as part of the $2,500 fee, and then keep it secret so it doesn’t lose it’s magical powers, but I don’t mind telling you that the one I came up with was running specific: “glide” was the word I chose.)

As far as a totem image goes, an appealing part of the female anatomy popped into my head – my wife was sitting next to me, remember – so I went with that.

And it was all too much.

After a while I ditched most of it and just tried to relax and do the opposite of letting my mind wander, if that makes any sense. This was about being able to enhance concentration for focusing on running form, so I just imagined good running technique over and over in my mind while lying there in the sun next to my beautiful and also meditating wife, who finished top of her class from med school and has never shown any indications of lacking the ability to concentrate.

It was a few minutes later when I felt a wet blob fall on my chest.

“Son of a bitch!” I exclaimed, looking down at the brown goo that had suddenly appeared on my bare pectoral muscle. “A bird just shit on me!”

My wife burst out laughing like I hadn’t heard in a long time. “Well, I guess that tells you what the universe thinks of your ability to meditate.”

With love from The Universe.

Yeah, we all had a good laugh. The bigger laughs came about 10 minutes later.

After cleaning up I’d given up on the meditating and was just enjoying a beer on the deck when my 14-year-old son came out with a look of undisguised mirth on his face. “Dad,” he said, “I should tell you that I was up on the next deck above eating chocolate ice cream, and some fell from my spoon and landed on you. When I heard you swear I couldn’t help it, I just ran away laughing.”

Well, everyone else laughed harder. For some reason I was disappointed that it was ice cream and not poop. Not sure why. Perhaps I’m warped.

Anyway, screw meditation. If it works for you, great. I don’t think I need it. Every time I lift weights it’s an act of supreme concentration, and during my pace-holding runs I’m learning how to put all my concentration into holding proper running form and pace. I’m learning by doing. I don’t need to enhance my calm or de-stress, because neither of those things are issues for me. I already engage in plenty of meditation; I just happen to be lifting heavy things while doing it.

– Originally published on SixPackAbs.com

"12 Years a Slave" Reminds Us that Slaves Didn't Win Freedom by Being Manly

A friend at Facebook (thanks Jean!) turned me on to this article from The Atlantic, a review of the new film (based on a true story), 12 Years a Slave. The reason this film - and this review of the film - appeals to me is that Director Steve McQueen offers a different take on the movie hero - traditionally a role that requires that a man "man-up," or become a "real man," which generally means to physically defeat one's tormentor or enemy.

Not so in this film, which is a fictionalized adaptation of the 1853 autobiography Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup, a free black man who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841 and sold into slavery.

In Django Unchained, as is also true in Glory, manly strength leads to freedom and vengeance. In 12 Years a Slave, it serves only to harm those you care about.

When Northup escapes, it's not through violence, but because a white Canadian working on the plantation agreed to get word to the north. Northup's ordeal ends as abruptly as it began when an old white friend pulls up at the plantation with the sheriff. There's no hail of gunfire, only a hail of legalese. Nor is this a happy ending. No one can give him back his lost years with his wife, or missing his children grow up. Patsey, and many others, are still enslaved. The men who kidnapped him are never brought to justice. Northup has no manly triumph. '12 Years a Slave' doesn't see slavery as a trial that men must overcome on their way to being men, but as a systemic evil that leaves those in its grasp with no good choices.

I'm excited to see this film - it's rare that life on film is presented with the fully incomprehensible abruptness that we experience in real life. One day Northup is a happily married man making a living as a musician - the next he has been sold into slavery. And just as suddenly, 12 years later, through no heroic action on his part, he is once again a free man . . . but his life and his sense of the world is forever altered by his experience.

NPR did a short but interesting review of the film, and it has been reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and culture blog. It has a 7.9/10 rating at IMdB and a 95% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes (94% among views who are not critics).

12 Years a Slave's Reminder: Slaves Didn't Win Freedom by Being Manly

Unlike Glory or Django Unchained, Steve McQueen's film resists the notion that a slave could overcome the institution just by fully asserting his masculinity.

Noah Berlatsky | Oct 21 2013


Fox Searchlight

Hollywood is in general uncomfortable with race, but it likes heroic masculinity. It's no surprise, then, that films about slavery often end up being about men becoming men. Django Unchained is a basic revenge story, with Django taking up the phallic gun to blast the evil forces that have held him down and captured his wife. Glory is a standard military parable, with the weak and undisciplined black troops learning to be a deadly fighting force even as their boyish white commanding officer proves himself. "We're men," Denzel Washington declares before the final battle, for all the world as if, before they joined the regiment, they were something else.

Remarkably and honorably, 12 Years a Slave, based on Solomon Northup's 1841 autobiographical narrative, has a different story to tell. When the film opens, Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free musician, living in Saratoga, New York with his wife, son and daughter. He's a success and a grown-up; he doesn't need to learn to become a man. The narrative arc of the film isn't from powerlessness to power. It's the reverse.

Northup is courted by two men who promise him a touring gig, and then, after they've lured him to Washington, slip him a drug, knocking him unconscious. He wakes up in a cell, where he is viciously beaten on all fours while the slaver hits him with a stick from behind. Northup loses his former life, his dignity, even his self, as he is forced to take the name of a runaway slave, Platt. The entire sequence is a violation and unmanning—it's presented as a symbolic rape.

If we were working with the logic of Glory or Django, Northup would have to regain his manhood by standing up to his attackers and besting them in combat. That's not what happens here, though. Instead, Northup tries various ways to deal with the system. At first, he uses his education and skills to help his (very) relatively humane owner, William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), with various engineering projects. Then, when he is harassed and attacked by Ford's overseer, he fights back, in a scene reminiscent of Frederick Douglass's autobiography, whipping the man who had intended to whip him. Where Douglass triumphed, though, Northup just ends up sold to a true sadist. As another slave, Eliza (Adepero Oduye), tells Northup, you can compromise yourself as you will, give the slave-owners your skills or your body. It doesn't matter. You're still a slave.

Eliza's speech has no parallels in Glory or Django, because when masculinity is the story, women are pushed to the sidelines. In Django, the main romance of the film is between Django and his white buddy; the second is between Django and the evil slave Stephen—and lagging far behind in third is the relationship between Django and his wife, who functions more as a prize than as a person. For its part, Glory barely has a female speaking role; like Django, all its energy goes into inter- and intra-racial male bonding.

12 Years a Slave though, doesn't present masculinity as a solution to slavery, and as a result it's able to think about and care about women as people rather than as accessories or MacGuffins. Other than Northup, in fact, the most vivid slave characters are female. There's Eliza, who is utterly devastated by the loss of her children. And there's Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), a phenomenal worker in the cotton fields who Northup's second sadistic owner, Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), takes as his mistress. Patsey is raped by Epps, loathed by his jealous wife, and systematically abused, beaten, and tortured by both. In a terrifying scene, she wakes Northup up and begs him to take her to the marsh and drown her. "Do what I ain't got the strength to do myself," she pleads. "God is merciful and forgives merciful acts."

Northup, with a desperate callousness, refuses, asking her "How can you fall into such despair?"—though there's no question that he knows exactly how. Later, he is forced at gunpoint to lash her back bloody. In Django, manly strength leads to freedom and vengeance; here, it serves only to harm those you care about.

When Northup escapes, it's not through violence, but because a white Canadian working on the plantation agreed to get word to the north. Northup's ordeal ends as abruptly as it began when an old white friend pulls up at the plantation with the sheriff. There's no hail of gunfire, only a hail of legalese. Nor is this a happy ending. No one can give him back his lost years with his wife, or missing his children grow up. Patsey, and many others, are still enslaved. The men who kidnapped him are never brought to justice. Northup has no manly triumph. '12 Years a Slave' doesn't see slavery as a trial that men must overcome on their way to being men, but as a systemic evil that leaves those in its grasp with no good choices.

Manly triumph isn't to be sneered at in every case. The 54th Massachusetts of Glory really did fight with honor and transform Northern opinion about blacks—their courage really did matter. But seeing slavery solely as a test of masculinity not only erases women's experience; it ends up making men who don't overcome it responsible for their own oppression. If you were a man, such narratives say, you would fight back and kill them all with the music swelling, as Django does in Django Unchained. Django even explicitly refers to its title character as "exceptional"—he is better than all those others sunk in slavery. If you don't defeat your enemies like a man, the film seems to say, then you're not a man, you're a moral failure. Which is not that far from saying that victims are responsible for their victimhood.

At the end of the film, when Northup returns to his family, he starts stammering apologies—for his appearance, for crying, and, though he doesn't say it, for being captured and being unable to return to his family for so long. To which his wife, Anne (Kelsey Scott) replies, "You have absolutely nothing to apologize for." 12 Years a Slave doesn't see slavery as a trial that men must overcome on their way to being men, but as a systemic evil that leaves those in its grasp with no good choices. As a result, 12 Years a Slave is that rare film about slavery in which slaves don't have to become Hollywood "men" for their stories to matter.

Related Story: 

The Searing, Visceral 12 Years a Slave

This is from The Onion, so it's satire, but satire is based in reality. In this case, a common reality. Don't be this guy.

Family Watches In Silence As Dad Checks Out Waitress

ISSUE 49•42 • Oct 14, 2013 

 

CLEVELAND—Struggling not to openly show discomfort, family members dining with local man Louis Munson sat quietly on Sunday as Munson peered intently in the direction of Olive Garden waitress Layla Martinez. Munson, who first noticed the 23-year-old brunette as she walked past carrying another table’s pasta entrees, reportedly gazed at her for approximately 12 seconds, lingering on certain features of her anatomy while his fully aware wife, two sons, and daughter watched in silence. Though the family’s unease had largely passed by the end of the meal, sources say it was re-sparked when Munson suddenly noticed Martinez from across the restaurant bending down to tie her shoe.

Ed Yong - Sexism and Harassment in the Science-Writing World

Ed Yong (photo below) blogs at National Geographic's Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science blog here he does a weekly column of cool science-related articles from around the interwebs (I've got your missing links right here" - this week's is I've got your missing links right here (19 October 2013).

Before I continue, I want to mention that on the sidebar of his blog, Yong has this:

My wife, who makes it all possible  

I share this because Yong's personality and commitment to his wife is relevant to his comments on and coverage of a recent series of disturbing events in science journalism. This lends Yong more weight in his refutation of the behaviors described below.

A very well-known science writer and blogger, the Blogs Editor at Scientific American, and co-founder of ScienceOnline.com - Bora Zivkovic - was accused by first one and then several science writers - all female - of sexual harassment.

The pattern is pretty distinct in each of their stories: 

[Bora] contacted her, showed interest in her work, met with her, and then proceeded to steer the conversation straight towards sex (such as repeatedly telling her he was a "very sexual person.")

This is all so effing disturbing as a man - I work with women who go through this is much less public ways. Often, as is the case with Kathleen Raven, this kind of harassment devolves into rape.

I am so proud of these women for speaking out and revealing the culture of control and power in which they work. And I applaud Ed Yong for featuring this story on his blog this weekend.

Ladybits have issued a call for submissions on the power of harassment.

So with that, here is the opening to this week's "missing links" column.

Sexism and harassment in the science-writing world

It’s been a bit of a week in the science-writing world. First, Scientific American blogger Danielle Lee wrote about an editor who asked her to write for free and called her a whore when she turned him down. SciAm took down the post with inconsistent explanations, prompting a fierce online response. Maryn McKenna sums up the story and I’d really recommend this post by Kate Clancy. The post is back up; the editor, fired.

In the wake of that, writer Monica Byrne accused Bora Zivkovic, a leading figure in the science blogging community, of harassment. He apologised, but concurrently other women stepped forward, including science writers Hannah Waters and Kathleen Raven. The women are brave; their accounts, devastating. Raven’s is the most gut-wrenching thing I have read in recent memory. Trigger warnings apply.

The event has also prompted a lot of good pieces on gender and power issues in the science community. This is a non-exhaustive list, but: many good pieces on Ladybits; Melanie Tannenbaum on the psychology of impact vs. intent; Alice Bell on the nature of the sci-blogging community; Laura Helmuth with sage advice for people seeking mentorship (and those who can provide it), and more; Martin Robbins on keep-it-quiet-ism.

The whole thing also led to the heartbreaking #ripplesofdoubt hashtag as many people shared their stories of how pervasive harassment and sexism affects them. See Hope Jahren’s piece.

I’m pushing this to the foreground because it’s more important than any of the stuff below. We need to open our eyes. We need to ensure that our colleagues don’t have to go through this, and certainly not alone. We need to speak up about it because doing so will create a culture where people can speak up about it, where they can stand up and be supported. Not this. [emphasis added]

More coverage here, here, here.

Lisa Firestone, Ph.D. - What's Getting in the Way of Your Sex Life

Dr. Lisa Firestone is the co-author of Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships (2008) and the Compassion Matters blog at Psychology Today, as well as several other books, including The Self Under Siege: A Therapeutic Model for Differentiation (2012) and Creating a Life of Meaning and Compassion: The Wisdom of Psychotherapy (2003).

This is an interesting, though brief, post on the challenges we all can face in our sex lives over time and as we age.

What's Getting in the Way of Your Sex Life

Why our sexuality changes and what to do about it

Published on October 15, 2013 by Lisa Firestone, Ph.D. in Compassion Matters

Your sexuality can change a lot throughout one lifetime. It can even change a lot throughout one relationship. Some of these changes can be for the better. Others can feel like they're for the worse. When these changes occur, many men and women tend to take the wrong course of action, shutting up or shutting down. You may shy away from talking to your partner or pull away from a physical relationship you valued. You might lose interest in sex altogether or turn against yourself and your body. When people face these challenges, what they'll often find is that talking about sex, while it may feel uncomfortable at first, can be the key to maintaining a healthy sex life and a positive sense of one's own sexuality.

So what are some of the changes that impact a person's sex life? These shifts can be physical or related to age. They can even be caused by medications that strongly affect one's sexual feelings and performance. Although these are often natural alterations that our bodies go through over time, people tend to view them as embarrassing or something to be kept secret. However, the opposite is true.

Talking about these changes, be it with your partner, a friend or your doctor can lead to more understanding and self-compassion and allows you to maintain a satisfying sex life. As your body changes, you can choose to take a healthy approach to these shifts without turning on yourself and giving in to your "critical inner voices," allowing them to tear you down or make you feel insecure. It's important not to listen to what your inner critic tells you about these changes or to allow yourself to shut the door on your sexuality.

In addition to physical adjustments, people of all ages often face an onslaught of psychological influences that can hurt their sexuality. This can have a lot to do with the critical inner voice, which every person possesses. When it comes to sexuality a person's inner critic often comments on their performance, their bodies or what their partner is feeling or not feeling. This "voice" keeps people in their heads instead of in their bodies.

When it comes to sex, most people tend to feel there are a lot of "supposed to's," as if they are supposed to perform this way or feel that way in a sexual encounter. These expectations are fueled by the critical inner voice and can lead people to feel self-conscious, insecure or disconnected when being physically affectionate. Many people can also be critical of their appearance, viewing themselves as too old/fat/unattractive/uncomfortable for sex. With all its input, your inner critic can negatively influence your sexual relationships and eventually prove the false notion that passionate relationships can't last long-term.

The truth is that intimate relationships don't have to lose their excitement. However, as people get closer, they tend to struggle with maintaining an alive and satisfying sexual relationship. Many people find it difficult to combine emotional intimacy and deep loving feelings with passionate sexuality. One reason this can occur, albeit mostly unconsciously, is that old issues from their past begin to surface. People may even start to experience "critical inner voices" about their sexuality that hold familiar themes from their past. For example, if you were hurt or rejected by the people who cared for you, you may have grown up feeling there is something wrong with you on a bodily level. You may have thoughts like "you are so unattractive, he/she is repulsed by you." If you felt a lack of affection as kids, you may feel desperate for affection as an adult, having thoughts like "you need to be aggressive. he/she is not going to come toward you." If you felt intruded on, you may have a tendency to pull away when someone gets close, thinking "he/she is so hungry towards you; you don't really want this."

When people start to get into their heads during sex, they lose a sense of connectedness to their partner. When they feel this distance, the sexual experience often doesn't feel as satisfying or worthwhile. With their head flooded with self-critiques and attacks on their partner, they may start to think about just getting through the sexual situation instead of enjoying it. Emotional closeness is the most important aspect of physical intimacy. Therefore, it becomes all the more important to bring your struggles to light and talk about what's going on.

When changes occur in you, be them physical or emotional, it can also affect your partner's feelings about him or herself. It may trigger critical inner voices in them like, you are bored with them or that they're unattractive to you, etc. Talking to your partner and exposing the destructive attitudes of your critical inner voices can bring you back to yourselves and can reestablish the closeness between you and your partner. Closeness, self-esteem and open communication are essential to lasting, healthy sexuality. They are also the biggest factors in sexual satisfaction.

When you open up to your partner about what's going on in your mind in regards to your sexuality, you allow him or her to know you on a deeper level. In a certain sense, conversation can be foreplay, as it allows a couple to feel for each other and get closer. While it may feel awkward or unnatural at first, very often, when they do open up and talk about it, there are major, surprising shifts in a couple's sexual relationship.

Too often, people let years pass without having a conversation about their sexuality. In addition to talking to your partner, you can confide in a close friend or a therapist. It's all too easy to feel alone in your struggles, but you'd be surprised at how many people relate to exactly what you're going through. Staying silent leaves room for your critical inner voices to fester and will make you feel worse and even like giving up on your sexuality. The more you talk, the better you are likely to feel, and the quieter the noise in your head can become.

When it comes to sex, the optimal experience involves feeling emotionally close to your partner, in touch with your body and in the present moment. I have found that by identifying and challenging destructive thought processes or critical inner voices that interfere with closeness and optimal sexual functioning, people can learn to combine love and sexuality and achieve that special combination that is so desirable in an intimate relationship. Taking a chance and talking to your partner can be the first step to achieving this goal.

Read more from Dr. Lisa Firestone at PsychAlive.org

Dr. Lisa Firestone will be presenting a weekend workshop on "Creating a Loving Relationship" Nov. 8-10 in Ojai, CA. The event is open to individuals and couples. Learn more here.

Read Dr. Lisa Firestone's book, Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships.

The Get Ripped at Home Bodyweight 500

Great bodyweight based exercise circuit - perfect for burning fat and keeping muscle. Just because it's getting to be sweatshirt season does not mean we can stop working at our fitness until spring. This is a quick and brutal workout.

This comes from Craig Ballantine's Turbulence Training aproach.

Renegade Burpee Combo Workout

The Get Ripped At Home Bodyweight 500

Date Posted: October 9, 2013



WORKOUT DESCRIPTION

Perform the following circuit 3 times, resting 1 minute between each circuit. Rest as little as possible otherwise.

1. Push-ups – 40 reps
2. Bodyweight Squats – 40 reps
3. Mountain Climbers – 40 reps
4. Bodyweight Row – 40 reps

Rest for 1 minute. Repeat circuit 2 more times for a total of 3 circuits. After last circuit, rest 1 minute, then do the following bodyweight exercise 1 time.

1. Jumping Jacks – 20 reps

Cory Silverberg - Near the Edge of Sexual Ambiguity

Michael Weiss and his colleagues at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine have been for several years exploring at the micro level what it is that makes us perceive our bodies as being either one sex or another, only male or only female.

In this new study they look at the chromosomal structures that determine biological sex - and it turns out there are many variations other than our culturally accepted sex/gender binary.

Near the Edge of Sexual Ambiguity

September 5, 2013
By Cory Silverberg
My Bio

It's rare to find poetry in a press release.

But I pulled the above phrase, which is so evocative and rich, describing as it does, not our bodies but a moment during fetal development before sex assignment; I mean just think about it: What does that edge look like? What happens when you peer over it? Who is teetering there? Are they worried about falling off, are they waiting to jump, or are they happy living on the edge? This is clearly the stuff of poetry and humanity) from a Case Western Reserve University press release a few days ago.

The release describes a study conducted by Michael Weiss and his colleagues at the School of Medicine, who have for several years been exploring in the most micro way imaginable what it is that makes us think about bodies as being either one sex or another, only male or only female.

A bit of background is required:

Despite rich and varied histories that demonstrate it isn't so, most societies function on the premise that all humans are easily classifiable as male or female, and that we can identify who is who by looking at genitals, hormones, and chromosomes. Usually human experience (one of the things we call "culture") is juxtaposed with science in this regard. The science, we're told is more cut and dry. Only it isn't. Medicine and science has for some time documented that humans are not easily categorizable into one of two sexes. If you look carefully at the research, sexual diversity, on the level of genital appearance, hormones and chromosomes, is present and predictable in humans. To use the language of normativity, the fact that some of us don't fit into one of two boxes is as normal as the fact that some of us do.

As Prof. Weiss explains in the poetic release, developmental biology has stuck with the two category model based on the understanding that human bodies develop in a consistent or reliable way because "evolution favors reliability. Robust switches ensure that our genetic programs give rise to a consistent body plan to ensure that babies have one heart, two arms, ten fingers, and so forth."

The switches Weiss is referring to are a way that researchers like him conceptualize gene expression and sexual development. Essentially, it is thought, that all fetuses begin with "female tissues." At some point in fetal development a "switch" turns on and as a result the fetus begins to develop "male tissues." Eventually testes develop, which produce testosterone, which in turn informs the development of male genitalia.

You may have heard someone say that we all start off female. That's what they were referring to.

So the theory is that in order to have bodies that can reliably survive and reproduce, we have evolved "robust switches." In other words, our fetal development is more or less sturdy and fixed, not a lot of diversity.

But we know that there is more diversity than society advertises. Thinking only of chromosomal sex, there are far more than two options. Instead of the popular XY "male" and XX "female" options we hear so much about, some of us have cells with XXX, XXY, XXYY, XYY, XO chromosomes, and the list continues. These "other" options are usually referred to as chromosomal abnormalities. Of course they aren't "other" or abnormal, they are chromosomes in bodies, they are us.

For simplicity sake I'm not going to get deeper into gender here, but it's hard not to point out that there are many more of us whose bodies have XY chromosomes and who are women, whose bodies have XX chromosomes and are men, whose bodies have one combination or another but identify somewhere in between or completely outside of the popular models that we're offered by society. You can read this glossary entry for more about the difference between sex and gender.

Back to genes and sex and switches.

In an effort to understand all this confusion between fixity and diversity, Weiss has been looking for many years at a particular switch, the SRY gene "master switch," that sets into motion the process of fetal tissue changing in a way that is described as male sex development.

In this paper he and his colleagues decided to look at the SRY genes that are shared by a father and his daughter. In this case the daughter has XY "male" chromosomes, but the SRY genes didn't trigger the switch in the predictable way so instead she developed internal female genitalia (ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus).

The researchers assumed that something significant must happen to make the SRY switch function in this unexpected way (in their language they expected that a "severe insult to the Y-encoded switch" was necessary and would be in the neighborhood of a factor of 100 or more). What they found was the threshold at which the SRY functions in this unexpected way was only a factor of two. From the release:

"Therefore, human males actually develop near the edge of sexual ambiguity. This means that, unlike the robust genetic programs which develop other essential processes like heart function, the SRY gene master switch is particularly vulnerable to change. It only takes a slight deviation from the normal process to dramatically alter fetal sexual development.

Given the importance of sexual reproduction to the survival of a species, why do human SRY genes function so close to the boundary of infertility? The idea of an unreliable master switch might appear paradoxical, but a growing body of research suggests that it might be an evolutionary necessity."

Weiss hypothesizes that, rather than predictability, diversity in sex development and expression is itself an evolutionary advantage:

"We have this tenuous switch on the Y chromosome, and we anticipate that its gift to humanity is variability in the pathway of male development from its earliest stages. The essential idea is that our evolution has favored a broad range of social competencies. In prehistory, this range would have given a survival advantage to communities enriched by a diversity of gender styles."

Weiss is focusing on a very narrow part of our bodies, one group of genes on one chromosome. And to be honest I only have the most rudimentary understanding of the technology that allows them to do this work, and the science that describes the work they are doing. But with that caveat, it's hard for me not to want to think about the implications of this research not only on a chromosomal level but on a social one.

The incorrect notion that bodies should fit into one of two clear categories and those bodies are clearly and visibly different in ways that are fixed and consistent across time makes living in our bodies difficult and even intolerable for many of us. It also continues to contribute to the practice of performing unnecessary and harmful surgeries on infants in order to make their bodies fall in line with social expectations that have nothing to do with health or with the beauty of our bodies.

It's hard for me not to let out a little "damn right" yell when I read a Professor of Biochemistry and Medicine writing that all our bodies, especially those that insist on undecidable sex characteristics, are a "gift to humanity" (even if I'm unsure whose giving that gift and who is receiving it).

In some ways this research is only confirming what those of us paying particular attention to sex and gender already know is true. And given medicine's lackluster track record at dealing respectfully with bodies that don't fit its normative expectations, maybe I shouldn't get so excited. But I guess I'm happy any time it feels like someone is getting to speak some truth. It's a little bit of poetry.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Inherited human sex reversal due to impaired nucleocytoplasmic trafficking of SRY defines a male transcriptional threshold

Full Citation:
Yen-Shan Chen, YS, Racca, JD, Phillips, NB, and Weiss, MA. (2013, Sep 3). Inherited human sex reversal due to impaired nucleocytoplasmic trafficking of SRY defines a male transcriptional threshold. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Published online before print September 3, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1300828110

The full article is behind a paywall, so here is the basic abstract info for the original article discussed above.

Inherited human sex reversal due to impaired nucleocytoplasmic trafficking of SRY defines a male transcriptional threshold

Yen-Shan Chen, Joseph D. Racca, Nelson B. Phillips, and Michael A. Weiss,
Author Affiliation
 

Significance

Mutations in human SRY (sex determining region on Y chromosome) associated with somatic sex reversal provide a model for the perturbation of a genetic switch in organogenesis. Inherited alleles, associated with either testicular or ovarian differentiation, provide unique probes of threshold biochemical properties, defining mechanistic borders between functional and nonfunctional transcription factors. This study exploited two such alleles to demonstrate that bidirectional nucleocytoplasmic trafficking (import–export shuttling) enables robust operation of this switch via phosphorylation at a site external to the DNA-binding motif of the transcription factor. In accordance with studies of intersexual mice, our results suggest that human SRY functions at the edge of ambiguity.

Abstract

Human testis determination is initiated by SRY (sex determining region on Y chromosome). Mutations in SRY cause gonadal dysgenesis with female somatic phenotype. Two subtle variants (V60L and I90M in the high-mobility group box) define inherited alleles shared by an XY sterile daughter and fertile father. Whereas specific DNA binding and bending are unaffected in a rat embryonic pre-Sertoli cell line, the variants exhibited selective defects in nucleocytoplasmic shuttling due to impaired nuclear import (V60L; mediated by Exportin-4) or export (I90M; mediated by chromosome region maintenance 1). Decreased shuttling limits nuclear accumulation of phosphorylated (activated) SRY, in turn reducing occupancy of DNA sites regulating Sertoli-cell differentiation [the testis-specific SRY-box 9 (Sox9) enhancer]. Despite distinct patterns of biochemical and cell-biological perturbations, V60L and I90M each attenuated Sox9 expression in transient transfection assays by twofold. Such attenuation was also observed in studies of V60A, a clinical variant associated with ovotestes and hence ambiguity between divergent cell fates. This shared twofold threshold is reminiscent of autosomal syndromes of transcription-factor haploinsufficiency, including XY sex reversal associated with mutations in SOX9. Our results demonstrate that nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of SRY is necessary for robust initiation of testicular development. Although also characteristic of ungulate orthologs, such shuttling is not conserved among rodents wherein impaired nuclear export of the high-mobility group box and import-dependent phosphorylation are compensated by a microsatellite-associated transcriptional activation domain. Human sex reversal due to subtle defects in the nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of SRY suggests that its transcriptional activity lies near the edge of developmental ambiguity.