As of this afternoon, I'm headed for Rochester. I will be starting my new job on Monday, living at an Extended Stay hotel until I find a new permanent residence.
I'm not sure when I'll have Internet access back. I'm hoping that my employer will be giving me a laptop for my work computer. If that's the case, I hope to get permission to take it back to my hotel at night so I can keep some access on my personal time. Otherwise, I'll have to wait until I get a place of my own, get my computer set up, and have broadband installed.
Either way, tootles!
Friday, July 22, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Health Update
Today, I went to see Dr. Lee. It was time for my four month follow-up appointment. I guess things could've gone a lot worse, but they could've gone better, too. In the last four months, I've gained back 16 pounds. That puts me back up to 288. Granted, that still makes a net loss of 23 pounds since November 2, so I guess I shouldn't berate myself too badly. (Besides, berating myself doesn't accomplish anything other than to sap my desire to pick up where I left off and try again.) And my glycohemoglobin was up to 7.1, compared to 5.6 in March. This doesn't surprise me, but it does upset me. However, Jenn did point out that the change probably wasn't drastic as all that. My last bloodwork had covered the period where I was having numerous drops into the danger areas, so my last results were probably a bit low, anyway. She figures a more reasonable result last time would've been somewhere around 6.5. Of course, I think she partly said that just to make me feel better. After all, one of her primary duties is to keep the patients motivated, no matter what the news.
Dr. Lee decided to put my on Byetta, which is apparently a relatively new drug (as I understand it, it's actually a hormone) they've come out with for treating diabetes. Dr. Lee didn't want to put me back on glyburide or start me on insulin, as he was concerned either of those options would have me bottoming out severely like last time. The downside to Byetta, however, is that it has to be injected (in the thigh or abdomen, no less!). So I've had to learn to give myself an injection. Actually, it wasn't too bad. Jenn showed me how to do it, and she has a pretty good method for convincing patients that it's not as hard as they think. By the time she's done, you realize that actually lancing your fingers to test your bloodsugar hurts more than sticking the needle for Byetta (or even insulin, I understand) in does. So that was a pleasant surprise. So hopefully, I'll start this and get back on track with my diet and exercise, and things will go well.
Dr. Lee decided to put my on Byetta, which is apparently a relatively new drug (as I understand it, it's actually a hormone) they've come out with for treating diabetes. Dr. Lee didn't want to put me back on glyburide or start me on insulin, as he was concerned either of those options would have me bottoming out severely like last time. The downside to Byetta, however, is that it has to be injected (in the thigh or abdomen, no less!). So I've had to learn to give myself an injection. Actually, it wasn't too bad. Jenn showed me how to do it, and she has a pretty good method for convincing patients that it's not as hard as they think. By the time she's done, you realize that actually lancing your fingers to test your bloodsugar hurts more than sticking the needle for Byetta (or even insulin, I understand) in does. So that was a pleasant surprise. So hopefully, I'll start this and get back on track with my diet and exercise, and things will go well.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Good day
Today was a very good day. I think my television stayed off for almost the entire day, which is a good thing. It's days like today that remind me that I watch the darn thing too much. This is sad because despite the fact that I tell myself I do it to relax, I don't find watching television all that relaxing.
What I did find relaxing today was taking a blanket outdoors and laying in the yard reading a books. It was quite peaceful and enjoyable. Since I laid out in the backyard inside the area that's fenced in, I also took Precious out with me. So my little kitty cat got to run around exploring her outdoor kingdom while I'd read. or she'd lay down on one of the flat stones in the shade. It was really quite cute.
Every now and then, Precious would decided she needed my affection. So she'd zoom over to me and meow at me. I'd set down my book (after all, paying attention to an affectionate cat is better than any book I've ever read), and pet her for a bit. After a few seconds, she'd decide that all was well with her world, and she'd zoom off to do her own thing. Thus freed up, I'd pick up my book and read another five or six pages before Little Miss Adventurous would decide to repeat the process. It was quite cute, really.
My book of choice was "Break Up or Break Through." I think I only have the current chapter to go plus two others. It's been a pretty good book. Or at least it's served my purposes. I think that under other circumstances, I'd find it way too much like other "self-help" books: insipid and with little real value. But at the same time, it's been good for me, because the author is trying to talk about self-exploration, personal growth, and healing. As these are all things that I know I need to work on and have an idea of how to go about it, I'm finding the book helpful just in the sense that I can use parts of it as a "personal checklist." I already understand the things she's talking about, and can actually do them on a practical level. So her book is just helping to remind me of the tools I already have and am already familiar with.
What I did find relaxing today was taking a blanket outdoors and laying in the yard reading a books. It was quite peaceful and enjoyable. Since I laid out in the backyard inside the area that's fenced in, I also took Precious out with me. So my little kitty cat got to run around exploring her outdoor kingdom while I'd read. or she'd lay down on one of the flat stones in the shade. It was really quite cute.
Every now and then, Precious would decided she needed my affection. So she'd zoom over to me and meow at me. I'd set down my book (after all, paying attention to an affectionate cat is better than any book I've ever read), and pet her for a bit. After a few seconds, she'd decide that all was well with her world, and she'd zoom off to do her own thing. Thus freed up, I'd pick up my book and read another five or six pages before Little Miss Adventurous would decide to repeat the process. It was quite cute, really.
My book of choice was "Break Up or Break Through." I think I only have the current chapter to go plus two others. It's been a pretty good book. Or at least it's served my purposes. I think that under other circumstances, I'd find it way too much like other "self-help" books: insipid and with little real value. But at the same time, it's been good for me, because the author is trying to talk about self-exploration, personal growth, and healing. As these are all things that I know I need to work on and have an idea of how to go about it, I'm finding the book helpful just in the sense that I can use parts of it as a "personal checklist." I already understand the things she's talking about, and can actually do them on a practical level. So her book is just helping to remind me of the tools I already have and am already familiar with.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Witchdom of the True -- My Thoughts
Last night, before I ran off to the madness known as the midnight relese party for Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince, I managed to finish up Edred Thorsson's book, Witchdom of the True. I overall found it an interesting book, if somewhat lacking in substance. The material that was there was quite good, but it seemed to me as if Thorsson went out of his way to avoid any deep discussions of the topics. (Indeed, by the way he kept referring the reader to other books for more information on various topics, I began to wonder if Thorsson is becoming the "Raymond Buckland of Heathenry.")
One of the more interesting points I found in this book is that Thorsson suggests that besides being about "reconsructionist purity vs. eclecticism," the animosity between Wicca and Asatru is also on some level a modern day expression of the age old friction between the Vanic and Aesiric cults, as also described in the war between the Aesir and the Vanir mentioned in the lore. To me, this makes a great deal of sense, as one of my own issues with Asatru and most reconstructionist religion is its primary -- and sometime sole -- focus on intellectual study while ignoring the mystical aspects. The fact that Thorsson draws out this same parallel fascinates me.
Of course, Thorsson's endorsement of ritual bondage and scourging as likely being some of the more legitimately traditional aspects of witchcraft or wiccaecraft also made me smile. These are aspects of Traditional Wicca that I think too many people try to inch away from and demonize without understanding the rich symbolism lying underneath them.
Of course, while were on the topic of Traditional Wicca/BTW, I should probably mention Thorsson's treatment of the topic. I have to admit that his treatment of the subject is somewhat more flattering than what most reconstructionists have to say about the subject. I admire the fact that he can admit that there are certainly some hints of more traditional aspects -- what he considers the "legitimate" ones -- in the practices rather than being something Gardner pulled completely out of his butt. But at the same time, it seems to me that he failed to understand that much of the stuff he dismissed as "extraneous junk" in BTW is stuff that isn't seen as "core" by most BTW, either. And then, of course, there's the fact that Thorsson recommends that people read the works of Aidan Kelley for more information on the early formation of Wicca. I'm not a fan of Mr. Kelley, and I think there are far better sources. As an aside, I also wonder why many reconstructionists -- especially Asatru, considering the virtues they espouse -- would put so much faith the works of a main who is a self-admitted Oathbreaker, anyway. It seems to me that they almost seem willing to trust an untrustworthy person only on the grounds that the Oaths he broke were taken before "other gods."
I do like the fact that he focuses on the importance of trancework in seidr/witchcraft. This has long been my own position, and I think that for the most part, we can learn more about these subjects by studying the "simple" magical and ecstatic techniques of other shamanistic practices rather than the work of the Kabbalists. (Though unlike Thorsson, I can admit that in some ways, Kabbalah and similar systems can make useful tools for understanding and learning. After all, we witches are a creative and adaptive bunch.)
Which brings me to Thorsson's stance on runes. It's his position that witches/seidr-workers/members of the Vana-Troth shouldn't bequite so involved in the runes, as they are Aesiric in nature. My personal problem with this is that like different cultures, the Aesiric and the Vanic cults of old would have interracted. And I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't learn and make use of the magical techniques from each other.
But then, Thorsson seemed to oscillate between being "intuitive" and "lore-bound" throughout the book. Which I have no problem with, as I love to combine my understanding of lore and my creative and intuitive side, myself. But Thorsson seemed to be pushing specific categories where people should be "intuitive" vs. other specific categories where they should be more "lore-bound." It just struck me as a strong suggestion that one should only be intuitive when Edred says it was okay, but maybe that's just my perception. But it particularly bothered me because he didn't really give any explanation of his reasoning behind how he determined whether more intuitive recreation was permissable or the lore should be more carefully followed.
Overall, the book was well worth reading and I may have to look up some of the books he recommended or listed in his bibliography. But in the end, it really left me asking if this was all he had. But then, I find myself wondering if that wasn't the point.
One of the more interesting points I found in this book is that Thorsson suggests that besides being about "reconsructionist purity vs. eclecticism," the animosity between Wicca and Asatru is also on some level a modern day expression of the age old friction between the Vanic and Aesiric cults, as also described in the war between the Aesir and the Vanir mentioned in the lore. To me, this makes a great deal of sense, as one of my own issues with Asatru and most reconstructionist religion is its primary -- and sometime sole -- focus on intellectual study while ignoring the mystical aspects. The fact that Thorsson draws out this same parallel fascinates me.
Of course, Thorsson's endorsement of ritual bondage and scourging as likely being some of the more legitimately traditional aspects of witchcraft or wiccaecraft also made me smile. These are aspects of Traditional Wicca that I think too many people try to inch away from and demonize without understanding the rich symbolism lying underneath them.
Of course, while were on the topic of Traditional Wicca/BTW, I should probably mention Thorsson's treatment of the topic. I have to admit that his treatment of the subject is somewhat more flattering than what most reconstructionists have to say about the subject. I admire the fact that he can admit that there are certainly some hints of more traditional aspects -- what he considers the "legitimate" ones -- in the practices rather than being something Gardner pulled completely out of his butt. But at the same time, it seems to me that he failed to understand that much of the stuff he dismissed as "extraneous junk" in BTW is stuff that isn't seen as "core" by most BTW, either. And then, of course, there's the fact that Thorsson recommends that people read the works of Aidan Kelley for more information on the early formation of Wicca. I'm not a fan of Mr. Kelley, and I think there are far better sources. As an aside, I also wonder why many reconstructionists -- especially Asatru, considering the virtues they espouse -- would put so much faith the works of a main who is a self-admitted Oathbreaker, anyway. It seems to me that they almost seem willing to trust an untrustworthy person only on the grounds that the Oaths he broke were taken before "other gods."
I do like the fact that he focuses on the importance of trancework in seidr/witchcraft. This has long been my own position, and I think that for the most part, we can learn more about these subjects by studying the "simple" magical and ecstatic techniques of other shamanistic practices rather than the work of the Kabbalists. (Though unlike Thorsson, I can admit that in some ways, Kabbalah and similar systems can make useful tools for understanding and learning. After all, we witches are a creative and adaptive bunch.)
Which brings me to Thorsson's stance on runes. It's his position that witches/seidr-workers/members of the Vana-Troth shouldn't bequite so involved in the runes, as they are Aesiric in nature. My personal problem with this is that like different cultures, the Aesiric and the Vanic cults of old would have interracted. And I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't learn and make use of the magical techniques from each other.
But then, Thorsson seemed to oscillate between being "intuitive" and "lore-bound" throughout the book. Which I have no problem with, as I love to combine my understanding of lore and my creative and intuitive side, myself. But Thorsson seemed to be pushing specific categories where people should be "intuitive" vs. other specific categories where they should be more "lore-bound." It just struck me as a strong suggestion that one should only be intuitive when Edred says it was okay, but maybe that's just my perception. But it particularly bothered me because he didn't really give any explanation of his reasoning behind how he determined whether more intuitive recreation was permissable or the lore should be more carefully followed.
Overall, the book was well worth reading and I may have to look up some of the books he recommended or listed in his bibliography. But in the end, it really left me asking if this was all he had. But then, I find myself wondering if that wasn't the point.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Whining about the past
I'm in one of those states of minds where I want Mike back. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm in a state of mind where I want what I thought I had with Mike back. The thing is, I've been coming to realize the gaping discrepancies between what I thought I had with him and what I really had. And that's a bitter pill to swallow.
I thought we really had something. I thought we really meant a lot to each other. And I thought we had a strong bond, forged of commitment. And I'm now realizing just how untrue that was. To be honest, other than a few happy moments together here and there (and let's face it, a few of those times were truly good and I'll still cherish them), we really didn't have much at all.
I don't feel I was a boyfriend at all. I feel more like a "status symbol." I was there to make him feel good. I was there to let him know that no matter how rough his life got, at least he had someone he could call his. And that hurts. Because I'm more than that. I'm a human being, not something to be kept around so you can feel good about yourself.
The breakup started when I wrote him an email asking him to talk about our relationship and our future. He ignored it for two whole weeks. Sure, he acknowledged the message a couple days after I sent it. But he told me "he didn't know what to say" and then proceeded to ignore the subject until I prodded him.
When he finally did respond, he said very little about us. Other than to give me the same song and dance about how I "meant the world to him." But after that single line, it was all about him. He was happy with the way things were. He wasn't ready to take things any further. He hadn't had time to think about it because his job had been too hectic. (His hectic job seems a rather convenient distraction when he wants to avoid a topic.)
Where was "us" in all of this. Where was I in all of this. Apparently, "I" and "we" didn't factor into this at all. And while I can be (and am) angry about that. I have to admit I'm more hurt. I honestly thought I meant more than that.
And what bothers me, is that has me questioning my judgement. If I can be so easily fooled into believing that I mean more to someone than I really do, how will I ever manage? I thought I had been careful. I thought I knew him better than that. And in the end, I was wrong. And I guess that's hurting my pride a bit right now. Hell, it's hurting my pride a whole damn lot. Who am I kidding?
I thought we really had something. I thought we really meant a lot to each other. And I thought we had a strong bond, forged of commitment. And I'm now realizing just how untrue that was. To be honest, other than a few happy moments together here and there (and let's face it, a few of those times were truly good and I'll still cherish them), we really didn't have much at all.
I don't feel I was a boyfriend at all. I feel more like a "status symbol." I was there to make him feel good. I was there to let him know that no matter how rough his life got, at least he had someone he could call his. And that hurts. Because I'm more than that. I'm a human being, not something to be kept around so you can feel good about yourself.
The breakup started when I wrote him an email asking him to talk about our relationship and our future. He ignored it for two whole weeks. Sure, he acknowledged the message a couple days after I sent it. But he told me "he didn't know what to say" and then proceeded to ignore the subject until I prodded him.
When he finally did respond, he said very little about us. Other than to give me the same song and dance about how I "meant the world to him." But after that single line, it was all about him. He was happy with the way things were. He wasn't ready to take things any further. He hadn't had time to think about it because his job had been too hectic. (His hectic job seems a rather convenient distraction when he wants to avoid a topic.)
Where was "us" in all of this. Where was I in all of this. Apparently, "I" and "we" didn't factor into this at all. And while I can be (and am) angry about that. I have to admit I'm more hurt. I honestly thought I meant more than that.
And what bothers me, is that has me questioning my judgement. If I can be so easily fooled into believing that I mean more to someone than I really do, how will I ever manage? I thought I had been careful. I thought I knew him better than that. And in the end, I was wrong. And I guess that's hurting my pride a bit right now. Hell, it's hurting my pride a whole damn lot. Who am I kidding?
Sunday, July 10, 2005
A bit of a rant
It truly amazes me how many "spiritually enlightened" people there are out there who despite their great enlightenment, just can't seem to reign in their temper and control their tongues and other behavior. Apparently, "spiritual enlightenment" goes hand in hand with petty name-calling and other acts that I generally see when one of my nieces or nephews is throwing a temper tantrum.
Okay, I suppose I should explain a bit about how this whole thing got started. On a message board I'm on, someone decided to post an interview with an anonymous source on the use of marijuana as an aid in spiritual work. A number of people really didn't like the idea and expressed negative opinions on the matter. I gave a bit of a more indepth critique, explaining my feelings that people in our society that promote the use of chemical (or even organic) substances in spiritual work tend to be looking for "spiritual shortcuts." After all, while I fully acknowledge that various cultures (particularly tribal cultures that involved shamanism and ecstatic practices in general) used such substances, I also note that such substances were merely one technique in a much more complex system. Indeed, the preparatory work for a given rite involving such substances were usually time consuming and involved the use of techniques and disciplines learned and developed over a period of years. Compare this to the modern "weekend occultists" who want to just spend a few minutes getting ready and then hit the drug of day to get things going, and you see very different worldviews. And I'm inclined to say that the former is responsible (if dubious by our squeamish modern standards) while the latter is reprehensible.
Well, the kid who posted the link got all huffy. As it turns out, he's in favor of drug use in spiritual work, and has practiced it. So naturally, he interpreted my critique of the article and my statements about the practice in general as personal attacks. (Of course, this kid interprets any disagreement with him as personal attacks.) So now, he's accusing me and everyone else of being "close-minded" and attempting to "discredit him."
Then he goes on this tirade about how our opinions of him doesn't matter. To paraphrase the Bard on that one, "methinks the boy doth protest too much." And he went on to try and speak as if he's "better" than all of us, all with name-calling and swearing interspersed amongst this.
And I'm supposed to now believe that he's effectively used drugs to cultivate some sort of spiritual power (of course, those who know me know what I think about people in general who talk about "having power," especially when talking about spirituality) and has attained all this spiritual enlightenment. Yet, he can't be bothered to keep his cool when others disagree with him (despite the fact that their disagreement doesn't matter to him nor does it supposedly affect him).
It sounds to me that the kid is getting high and confusing it for a real ecstatic experience with spiritual signficance. But tha's the problem these days, isn't it? Spiritual ecstacy has become an end in itself. That ecstatic experience isn't done for a specific purpose. It's not a part of a larger spiritual Work. It's merely somethign we do for a "quick fix."
I guess this is what keeps drawing me to Traditional Wicca. In this Craft, there's more to it than a "quick spiritual fix." All of the rites are performed to accomplish something. It all works together in the greater tradition to do something beyond just being something we do because "it's that time of the year" or "it's time to get spiritual for a moment." Heck, even "spiritual enlightenment" is seen as more of a byproduct of the Work ahead rather than a goal in its own right. And I think that's proper.
Okay, I suppose I should explain a bit about how this whole thing got started. On a message board I'm on, someone decided to post an interview with an anonymous source on the use of marijuana as an aid in spiritual work. A number of people really didn't like the idea and expressed negative opinions on the matter. I gave a bit of a more indepth critique, explaining my feelings that people in our society that promote the use of chemical (or even organic) substances in spiritual work tend to be looking for "spiritual shortcuts." After all, while I fully acknowledge that various cultures (particularly tribal cultures that involved shamanism and ecstatic practices in general) used such substances, I also note that such substances were merely one technique in a much more complex system. Indeed, the preparatory work for a given rite involving such substances were usually time consuming and involved the use of techniques and disciplines learned and developed over a period of years. Compare this to the modern "weekend occultists" who want to just spend a few minutes getting ready and then hit the drug of day to get things going, and you see very different worldviews. And I'm inclined to say that the former is responsible (if dubious by our squeamish modern standards) while the latter is reprehensible.
Well, the kid who posted the link got all huffy. As it turns out, he's in favor of drug use in spiritual work, and has practiced it. So naturally, he interpreted my critique of the article and my statements about the practice in general as personal attacks. (Of course, this kid interprets any disagreement with him as personal attacks.) So now, he's accusing me and everyone else of being "close-minded" and attempting to "discredit him."
Then he goes on this tirade about how our opinions of him doesn't matter. To paraphrase the Bard on that one, "methinks the boy doth protest too much." And he went on to try and speak as if he's "better" than all of us, all with name-calling and swearing interspersed amongst this.
And I'm supposed to now believe that he's effectively used drugs to cultivate some sort of spiritual power (of course, those who know me know what I think about people in general who talk about "having power," especially when talking about spirituality) and has attained all this spiritual enlightenment. Yet, he can't be bothered to keep his cool when others disagree with him (despite the fact that their disagreement doesn't matter to him nor does it supposedly affect him).
It sounds to me that the kid is getting high and confusing it for a real ecstatic experience with spiritual signficance. But tha's the problem these days, isn't it? Spiritual ecstacy has become an end in itself. That ecstatic experience isn't done for a specific purpose. It's not a part of a larger spiritual Work. It's merely somethign we do for a "quick fix."
I guess this is what keeps drawing me to Traditional Wicca. In this Craft, there's more to it than a "quick spiritual fix." All of the rites are performed to accomplish something. It all works together in the greater tradition to do something beyond just being something we do because "it's that time of the year" or "it's time to get spiritual for a moment." Heck, even "spiritual enlightenment" is seen as more of a byproduct of the Work ahead rather than a goal in its own right. And I think that's proper.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Thirty Days
For the first time ever, I watched the show "Thirty Days" tonight. My friend Beth told me about it, and I wanted to check it out. I particularly wanted to watch tonight's episode, as it was about a young (mid-twenties) conservative Christian from Detroit who went to live with a gay roommate in the middle of San Francisco's Castro District for thirty days. I was pleasantly surprised by the show, and I wanted to take a few moments to review and critique it.
To be honest, when I originally heard about the details, I wasn't entirely thrilled. I took issue with sending the guy to San Francisco. San Francisco is the "gay mecca" of the United States, and as such, I don't feel it's a very accurate representation of the lives of most gay people. Those of us wholive outside of San Francisco (and possibly NYC) tend to live more isolated lives and have to deal more directly with straight people much more often. As such, I wasn't sure that sending someone to San Francisco was the best way to give them a clear view of what it's like to live life as a gay man.
Having watched the show, I have to admit that I find it necessary to reevaluate my opinion. An essential byproduct of sending Ryan to live in the Castro District was that it caused Ryan to be the one who was isolated. He was a straight, conservative Christian surrounded by a bunch of gay guys. If Ryan really thinks about that experience (and I get the impression he did and will), it probably gave him a much more clear idea of what many of us experience every day than we realize. This understanding would come to him by being in an analogous situation himself.
He got a first taste of this kind of experience his first night in town. Ed, Ryan's thirty-something roommate for the month, took him to dinner with eleven other gay guys. Having watched the footage, I have to admit that I hope the dinner conversation was highly edited. Every conversation focused on homosexuality and issues relating to it. And in a number of instances, the twelve gay guys put Ryan a bit on the defensive. (I have to admit that Ryan handled himself relatively well under the circumstances, too.) At one point, one of the gay guys even asked Ryan about how many times he's had people on the street throw beer cans at him. Ryan said never, and the person who asked the question indicated that it had happened to him more than once.
While there, Ryan also attended MCC services on at least two Sundays and had a number of meeting with the minister. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this part of the program. If what I saw was an accurate representation of the MCC, I don't think I'd be impressed at all. They aired brief segments from two of the services that Ryan attended, and both services went on about homosexuality. If this is a regular practice at every church service, I would have a serious problem with that, as there should be more to religion and spirituality than just sexuality. (And this is coming from someone who serves a goddess who values sexuality extremely highly!) Similarly, Ryan's meetings with the minister appeared to focus entirely on the topic of homosexuality, and there was a lot of head-butting there. It just seemed to me that there should have been an equal amount of searching for common ground as there was in arguing over this one topic. (Though I do give them credit for apparently keeping it more or less civil.)
They took Ryan to a gay bar. Let me just say "Wow!" Ryan did not find that the greatest of experiences, and I can't say as I completely blame him. There were a large number of barely dressed men (some looked to me as if they were running around in only briefs), and it definitely had the "meat market atmosphere" -- even moreso than the two clubs I have been to. One of the patrons picked a (verbal) fight with Ryan, which I felt was rather stupid. Though on the flip side, having had conservative people pick similar kinds of fights with me, I do have to admit that I felt it wasn't an entirely bad thing for Ryan to have to experience.
After that, Ed felt that Ryan was getting too frustrated and upset. So Ed took Ryan to join a gay softball team. I found it interesting that the team actually played in a league where all the other teams were (mostly?) straight. It was nice to see that the team wasn't totally isolationist in nature, and played teams that were not all-gay.
During his time playing softball, Ryan got to spend time with his team's coach, Charles. Ryan gained a lot of respect for Charles, realizing that he broke all of the gay stereotypes. And later, Ryan got to hear Charles's coming out story. Charles was one of those (hopefully) rare people who actually got thrown out of his house by his parents (he was 12 at the time) when he came out. Charles also indicated that at the time, he was highly religious and "went to bed every night, praying to wake up and be 'normal' the next morning." Ryan was very silent about this, and I think this story really confronted some of his own preconceived notions.
Ryan did make a few enemies at the local "gay chapter" of the VFW. Being a Reservice, Ryan has strong opinions on gays in the military. This did not go over well with the veterans he was speaking with. Both sides got quite upset. However, it did lead to an interesting discussion with Ed later that same day. When he got back to the apartment, Ryan and Ed talked about it. Ryan asked Ed to try to understand why a bunch of straight soldiers might have a problem with having a gay guy in the barracks. (Personally, I think straight guys have a problem with it because they're afraid gay guys will treat them as poorly as they themselves treat women, but that's besides the point.) Ed then turned around and asked Ryan about a hypothetical question. He asked Ryan to suppose that things went really bad in teh Middle East and that the United States found themselves at war with the whole region. This would probably mean that they'd have to reinstate the draft. So Ed asked Ryan to suppose that he (Ed) was drafted and ended up in Ryan's unit to serve during war. He asked Ryan whether he'd rather put up with Ed as a gay man serving with him or possibly not having enough manpower beside him to keep him and the rest of his unit safe.
Ryan actually admitted that he had to contradict himself. He admitted that having gotten to know Ed as a person over the past several days, he'd have no problem serving with him specifically. In fact, Ryan admitted that he felt that Ed had a lot to offer the military. As such, Ryan found himself having to reevaluate his blanket statement about gays in the military, and I respect him for having the integrity to admit that.
Ed also took Ryan to meet his family, which was an eye opening experience. While there, all of the men (Ryan, Ed, Ed's father, and Ed's brother) shot firearms. In a brief interview afterwards, Ryan admitted that it gave him a chance to see Ed as not just a gay guy but a brother, a son, and an uncle. And he was amazed at how his family treated him.
Ryan also attended a PFLAG meeting, where he got to talk to a father whose daughter came out to him her sophomore year in college. He got to listen to this father talk about his fears and worries, and his desire to see his daughter treated with the same respect and dignity a her two straight brothers. Ryan said this also touched his heart.
There was a lot more that happened, but I'm not going to go into everything. These are the experiences that really struck me, and I wanted to share them, as well as my brief thoughts in them. In closing, I'd like to talk about the brief segment in the show where Ryan eventually went home. He spent his first night home showing photos to his family and talking about his experiences. They only showed about thirty seconds to a minute of the discussion, but it was amazing to watch. His family asked all kinds of questions, and it seemed to me that Ryan was a bit troubled and shocked by the questions. Ryan himself admitted that when he got home and talked with his family that night, he really saw how much he had grown. He saw his own earlier attitudes and how much he had bought into the stereotypes reflected in his family now. He said that realizing how much he had bought into the stereotypes was the most powerful result of the experience. He found himself having to reevaluate his opinions.
I get the impression that his religious beliefs about homosexuality didn't change as a result. To be honest, that's okay (well, sorta). It would be unreasonable to expect such a change to happen just because of a thirty day experience. However, I did feel that he came away with a rather different perspective and that he did find his preconceived notions challenged in many ways. And I think that he should be commended to being open to that.
To be honest, when I originally heard about the details, I wasn't entirely thrilled. I took issue with sending the guy to San Francisco. San Francisco is the "gay mecca" of the United States, and as such, I don't feel it's a very accurate representation of the lives of most gay people. Those of us wholive outside of San Francisco (and possibly NYC) tend to live more isolated lives and have to deal more directly with straight people much more often. As such, I wasn't sure that sending someone to San Francisco was the best way to give them a clear view of what it's like to live life as a gay man.
Having watched the show, I have to admit that I find it necessary to reevaluate my opinion. An essential byproduct of sending Ryan to live in the Castro District was that it caused Ryan to be the one who was isolated. He was a straight, conservative Christian surrounded by a bunch of gay guys. If Ryan really thinks about that experience (and I get the impression he did and will), it probably gave him a much more clear idea of what many of us experience every day than we realize. This understanding would come to him by being in an analogous situation himself.
He got a first taste of this kind of experience his first night in town. Ed, Ryan's thirty-something roommate for the month, took him to dinner with eleven other gay guys. Having watched the footage, I have to admit that I hope the dinner conversation was highly edited. Every conversation focused on homosexuality and issues relating to it. And in a number of instances, the twelve gay guys put Ryan a bit on the defensive. (I have to admit that Ryan handled himself relatively well under the circumstances, too.) At one point, one of the gay guys even asked Ryan about how many times he's had people on the street throw beer cans at him. Ryan said never, and the person who asked the question indicated that it had happened to him more than once.
While there, Ryan also attended MCC services on at least two Sundays and had a number of meeting with the minister. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this part of the program. If what I saw was an accurate representation of the MCC, I don't think I'd be impressed at all. They aired brief segments from two of the services that Ryan attended, and both services went on about homosexuality. If this is a regular practice at every church service, I would have a serious problem with that, as there should be more to religion and spirituality than just sexuality. (And this is coming from someone who serves a goddess who values sexuality extremely highly!) Similarly, Ryan's meetings with the minister appeared to focus entirely on the topic of homosexuality, and there was a lot of head-butting there. It just seemed to me that there should have been an equal amount of searching for common ground as there was in arguing over this one topic. (Though I do give them credit for apparently keeping it more or less civil.)
They took Ryan to a gay bar. Let me just say "Wow!" Ryan did not find that the greatest of experiences, and I can't say as I completely blame him. There were a large number of barely dressed men (some looked to me as if they were running around in only briefs), and it definitely had the "meat market atmosphere" -- even moreso than the two clubs I have been to. One of the patrons picked a (verbal) fight with Ryan, which I felt was rather stupid. Though on the flip side, having had conservative people pick similar kinds of fights with me, I do have to admit that I felt it wasn't an entirely bad thing for Ryan to have to experience.
After that, Ed felt that Ryan was getting too frustrated and upset. So Ed took Ryan to join a gay softball team. I found it interesting that the team actually played in a league where all the other teams were (mostly?) straight. It was nice to see that the team wasn't totally isolationist in nature, and played teams that were not all-gay.
During his time playing softball, Ryan got to spend time with his team's coach, Charles. Ryan gained a lot of respect for Charles, realizing that he broke all of the gay stereotypes. And later, Ryan got to hear Charles's coming out story. Charles was one of those (hopefully) rare people who actually got thrown out of his house by his parents (he was 12 at the time) when he came out. Charles also indicated that at the time, he was highly religious and "went to bed every night, praying to wake up and be 'normal' the next morning." Ryan was very silent about this, and I think this story really confronted some of his own preconceived notions.
Ryan did make a few enemies at the local "gay chapter" of the VFW. Being a Reservice, Ryan has strong opinions on gays in the military. This did not go over well with the veterans he was speaking with. Both sides got quite upset. However, it did lead to an interesting discussion with Ed later that same day. When he got back to the apartment, Ryan and Ed talked about it. Ryan asked Ed to try to understand why a bunch of straight soldiers might have a problem with having a gay guy in the barracks. (Personally, I think straight guys have a problem with it because they're afraid gay guys will treat them as poorly as they themselves treat women, but that's besides the point.) Ed then turned around and asked Ryan about a hypothetical question. He asked Ryan to suppose that things went really bad in teh Middle East and that the United States found themselves at war with the whole region. This would probably mean that they'd have to reinstate the draft. So Ed asked Ryan to suppose that he (Ed) was drafted and ended up in Ryan's unit to serve during war. He asked Ryan whether he'd rather put up with Ed as a gay man serving with him or possibly not having enough manpower beside him to keep him and the rest of his unit safe.
Ryan actually admitted that he had to contradict himself. He admitted that having gotten to know Ed as a person over the past several days, he'd have no problem serving with him specifically. In fact, Ryan admitted that he felt that Ed had a lot to offer the military. As such, Ryan found himself having to reevaluate his blanket statement about gays in the military, and I respect him for having the integrity to admit that.
Ed also took Ryan to meet his family, which was an eye opening experience. While there, all of the men (Ryan, Ed, Ed's father, and Ed's brother) shot firearms. In a brief interview afterwards, Ryan admitted that it gave him a chance to see Ed as not just a gay guy but a brother, a son, and an uncle. And he was amazed at how his family treated him.
Ryan also attended a PFLAG meeting, where he got to talk to a father whose daughter came out to him her sophomore year in college. He got to listen to this father talk about his fears and worries, and his desire to see his daughter treated with the same respect and dignity a her two straight brothers. Ryan said this also touched his heart.
There was a lot more that happened, but I'm not going to go into everything. These are the experiences that really struck me, and I wanted to share them, as well as my brief thoughts in them. In closing, I'd like to talk about the brief segment in the show where Ryan eventually went home. He spent his first night home showing photos to his family and talking about his experiences. They only showed about thirty seconds to a minute of the discussion, but it was amazing to watch. His family asked all kinds of questions, and it seemed to me that Ryan was a bit troubled and shocked by the questions. Ryan himself admitted that when he got home and talked with his family that night, he really saw how much he had grown. He saw his own earlier attitudes and how much he had bought into the stereotypes reflected in his family now. He said that realizing how much he had bought into the stereotypes was the most powerful result of the experience. He found himself having to reevaluate his opinions.
I get the impression that his religious beliefs about homosexuality didn't change as a result. To be honest, that's okay (well, sorta). It would be unreasonable to expect such a change to happen just because of a thirty day experience. However, I did feel that he came away with a rather different perspective and that he did find his preconceived notions challenged in many ways. And I think that he should be commended to being open to that.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Witches Weekly -- Clergy
I've not been keeping up with Witches Weekly. However, I decided to take a peek at this week's questions. Having looked at them, I decided they were well worth answering.
1. What do you think the role of pagan clergy is in our society/communities?
To e honest, I'm not big on "clergy." I personally have no use for them. Furthermore, a part of me would rather encourage the Pagan community as a whole to avoid them altogether.
However, this is because of the form of witchcraft that I practice. I am looking to join a priesthood, and become a direct priest and servant of the gods. As such, I don't expect to need or want the help of clergyperson. Sure, I might need some advice or assistance from time to time, but I can get that from a sister or brother witch.
Some people aren't interested in the kind of service I'm looking to take on, though. And I'm starting to understand that some Pagans still need and want trained clergy to offer pastoral, counseling, and similar services to them. I can respect that. However, as that's not something I'm entirely interested in having or offering, I'll leave that to those who are interested.
2. If there was a pagan temple in your community like the Temple of Sekhmet, would you use it for a place to hold handfasting, naming, and coming of age rituals?
I don't really know, to be honest. My initial reaction is to say no, however. For example, not being a devotee of Sekhmet, I would find it inappropriate to use a temple dedicated to her for my services. (Just as I'd personally find it inappropriate to get married in my old church.)
If it was a "general" temple not dedicated to any specific deity, I suppose I might consider it. But even then, it would depend on a large number of factors and circumstances. I think of the specific rituals mentioned and I'm not sure I'd have any of those events be a public rite anyway. If I were to have a handfasting, it would be a magical ceremony that woudl be held with my covenmates as a private affair. As such, we would probably have a private temple or workspace we would use instead. Even if we chose to use a public temple for some reason, we would probably work the rites ourselves and not involve those who run the temple.
Specifically on the subject of the handfasting, I should note that I do not intend to have a public handfasting. If my lover and I decide to have a public ceremony at all, it will be extremely simple and mostly civil. To be honest, the majority of my family wouldn't show up just because I'd be marrying another man. I don't need to add the complication of throwing a lot of "Pagan mumbo jumbo" at them. (Besides, they're not welcome to my spiritual and magical rites, anyway.)
3. Would you feel comfortable getting counseling from a member of the pagan community?
This is not an easy yes or no question, in my book. To be perfectly blunt, if I am lookig for a counselor, that counselor's religious practices are not my primary concern. I'm not sure they're even in my list of concerns at all. Sure, I might want a counselor who is "Pagan friendly" -- or at least doesn't see my belief in Pagan gods and magic as something that needs to be "cured." If I can find a counselor I can work with, though, I don't care if she or he is Pagan, Buddhist, atheist, or even a fundamentalist Christian. The primary concern is "can I work with this person to work through the healing process I'm here for?" Nothing else.
1. What do you think the role of pagan clergy is in our society/communities?
To e honest, I'm not big on "clergy." I personally have no use for them. Furthermore, a part of me would rather encourage the Pagan community as a whole to avoid them altogether.
However, this is because of the form of witchcraft that I practice. I am looking to join a priesthood, and become a direct priest and servant of the gods. As such, I don't expect to need or want the help of clergyperson. Sure, I might need some advice or assistance from time to time, but I can get that from a sister or brother witch.
Some people aren't interested in the kind of service I'm looking to take on, though. And I'm starting to understand that some Pagans still need and want trained clergy to offer pastoral, counseling, and similar services to them. I can respect that. However, as that's not something I'm entirely interested in having or offering, I'll leave that to those who are interested.
2. If there was a pagan temple in your community like the Temple of Sekhmet, would you use it for a place to hold handfasting, naming, and coming of age rituals?
I don't really know, to be honest. My initial reaction is to say no, however. For example, not being a devotee of Sekhmet, I would find it inappropriate to use a temple dedicated to her for my services. (Just as I'd personally find it inappropriate to get married in my old church.)
If it was a "general" temple not dedicated to any specific deity, I suppose I might consider it. But even then, it would depend on a large number of factors and circumstances. I think of the specific rituals mentioned and I'm not sure I'd have any of those events be a public rite anyway. If I were to have a handfasting, it would be a magical ceremony that woudl be held with my covenmates as a private affair. As such, we would probably have a private temple or workspace we would use instead. Even if we chose to use a public temple for some reason, we would probably work the rites ourselves and not involve those who run the temple.
Specifically on the subject of the handfasting, I should note that I do not intend to have a public handfasting. If my lover and I decide to have a public ceremony at all, it will be extremely simple and mostly civil. To be honest, the majority of my family wouldn't show up just because I'd be marrying another man. I don't need to add the complication of throwing a lot of "Pagan mumbo jumbo" at them. (Besides, they're not welcome to my spiritual and magical rites, anyway.)
3. Would you feel comfortable getting counseling from a member of the pagan community?
This is not an easy yes or no question, in my book. To be perfectly blunt, if I am lookig for a counselor, that counselor's religious practices are not my primary concern. I'm not sure they're even in my list of concerns at all. Sure, I might want a counselor who is "Pagan friendly" -- or at least doesn't see my belief in Pagan gods and magic as something that needs to be "cured." If I can find a counselor I can work with, though, I don't care if she or he is Pagan, Buddhist, atheist, or even a fundamentalist Christian. The primary concern is "can I work with this person to work through the healing process I'm here for?" Nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
