Things Currently Annoying Me
1. Double-standards for history.
Prompted by someone on Twitter sharing a link to a youtube video by a professor of early Christian history explaining that "Christians weren't persecuted" during the first three centuries CE. Her statement is, in fact, that Christians weren't systematically persecuted for refusing to deny Christ, that stories of this persecution were later exaggerated and embellished, and that holding to a literalist view of there having been mass systematic persecution is harmful for today's society. Now, I'm totally down with the last point, and anyone who isn't aware that accounts of persecution were exaggerated is simply not aware of the process of myth-making that goes on in every religion as they seek to establish legitimacy and moral authority. But saying that there was not systematic persecution of Christians for the specific reason they claimed is a long way from saying "Christians weren't persecuted." There is documented historical evidence that some Christians refused to participate in certain political activities because of their religious beliefs, and they were punished accordingly (at times being put to death). No, this was not "systematic." And while the Christians believed that participating in specific activities would have been a "denial of Christ," those in power would not have necessarily seen it that way but would have seen it as an act of political rebellion. In our society today, we uphold the freedom of religion, which includes the right to abstain from political activities (like serving in the military or pledging to the flag) for religious reasons, or even simply as a matter of conscience if the issue holds a place of importance for the person equal to a religious conviction (believe me, as a pacifist, I have looked into this, and there are plenty of people who would like to make conscientious objection a crime on par with treason, an offense punishable by death -- so the issue of being killed for one's religious beliefs is still alive and well today). If someone today were put to death for refusing to comply with their government based on religious convictions (especially when their refusal did not result in any direct harm to anyone else), we would describe that as religious persecution. So yes, the stories were exaggerated, and yes, subscribing to a myth of mass victimization is definitely unhealthy. But only by holding some kind of weird double-standard can we come to the conclusion that therefore what happened to some Christians in the past somehow "doesn't count" as religious persecution.
This also goes for ancient Greek society. I've been seeing this claim popping up here and there that the view of ancient Greek society as patriarchal and sexist is incorrect and was the result of modern scholars discounting the role of women in that society as being inherently less important simply because they were women. This claim insists that, in fact, the role of women in the household and in private life was just as vital and important to society as the role of men in the public and political sphere, and that therefore ancient Greek society was not inherently sexist. But this claim overlooks a couple of serious issues: First, the activities of half of the population will be an important influence on a given society no matter what those activities include -- this is kind of a no-shit-Sherlock moment. Determining whether or not there is systemic sexism in a given culture is not a matter of determining how much influence women have, but what is the nature of that influence and what are the social and political forces acting on it, shaping it and restricting it. Second, the fact remains that a woman born in ancient Greek society had only very specific options available to her, and that these options were determined by her sex. Last time I checked, we had agreed that the "separate but equal" argument wasn't going to fly (in part because it's mostly an impossibility), and that it was still inherently unjust to restrict someone's lifestyle and choices according to race or sex. Were modern scholars biased in their claims? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that ancient Greek society wasn't sexist. By modern standards, I find it hard to argue that it wasn't.
2. Shitting on "nice" people.
I have never really understood why people feel like they're allowed to shit on other people for being nice. Calling people out (respectfully and constructively) for hypocrisy, duplicity, enabling and insensitivity or bullying in the guise of "caring" -- sure. But I think we're on dangerous ground (and living in a deeply cynical age) when the mere fact that someone seems pleasant and friendly is grounds to attack them. Knowing whether or not someone is being hypocritical or enabling requires a certain amount of familiarity with the context of that person's "niceness." It's worrying to me when people feel like they can presume that kind of insight into others based on stereotypes and broad generalizations.
"Nice" is an easy and fairly neutral word in most contexts; it's a word that a lot of people use to indicate a lack of familiarity, or a first impression. ("I only just met her, but she seemed nice," or "My coworker picked me up a coffee during their lunch break -- that was nice of them.") Last time I checked, it was generally a bad idea to go about disparaging people because of first impressions and a lack of information, assuming all sorts of nefarious schemes and ulterior motives behind a person's congenial attitude.
I think it's especially telling that the people who seem most eager to shit on "nice" people are people who tend to be somewhat caustic in how they relate to others. I wonder how often they themselves have been told that they aren't "all that nice." And I wonder how often the person telling them that was trying to communicate that they were in fact being rude, arrogant, defensive, disrespectful, or simply creating a hostile environment not conducive to real communication. (I wonder how often they were told directly and clearly that they were being disrespectful or defensive, and they chose to hear it as an accusation of not being "nice" instead of confronting the actual substance of the complaint.) But I guess being provocatively self-righteous about our bad attitudes is way easier than doing the hard work of learning how to communicate with others effectively and treating people with respect.
Things That Make The World Awesome
1. Exercise as meditation.
I've been doing yoga and tai chi in the mornings regularly for a little more than a week now. I tend to burn out on exercise precisely because I try to be too intense about it (and there's always an excuse about why I don't have time to devote an hour of intense exercise, followed by a cool down and a shower... and before you know it, it's been two hours and I haven't gotten to work yet, and I have so much to do!)... so I've been approaching it this time as a form of physical meditation, where the "point" is not to "feel the burn," but to settle into a refreshed and awake state of mind. That seems to be helping tremendously; it's good to get up and get active early in the morning, doing a simple exercise that is more about the movement itself than about improving at something (like strength, or weight loss). I also ordered a book on the spiritual and energetic aspects of tai chi, and that should be arriving today at some point. It's just a shame that tai chi is seen mostly as a trendy exercise for old people in this country. I'm really intrigued by its relationship to Taoism as a spiritual path, but it's hard to find much information on that.
2. Cu talks to birds.
Really, just Cu in general. He is such an awesome cat. Just now, he came over to the windowsill and sat chirping at a bird (possibly a robin?) perched on the roof of the apartment building across the street. Most mornings now, he'll come and just sit staring at me until I get up and feed him, and if Jeff's already fed him, then he'll just come and hang out with me until I get up. During the day, he'll wander about the house, finding a spot in whatever room he happens to like -- but when I'm in bed, it's like he has to be in the same room as me, on eye level, so that whenever I open my eyes... there he is. (Okay, it sounds creepier than it is. It's actually adorable.)
3. Metaphors We Live By
I've been reading Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By, and Sarah Allan's book, The Way of Water, in which she applies Lakoff's linguistic theories to examine the root metaphors of Taoism and ancient Chinese religion more generally. Last weekend, Jeff and I spent hours discussing how Lakoff's ideas apply to the concept of "nature worship" in a Pagan context, and we even planned an outline and took extensive notes -- we seriously might have enough material for a short book on the topic. It might sound silly, but I really enjoyed working with him through these ideas, bringing together his knowledge of linguistics with my background in religious studies (and ecology, to a lesser extent). It was the kind of in-depth, detailed conversation I used to have in college, and it just reaffirms for me the fact that I'm not kidding myself when I say that I really love people who know more than I do. There's a special kind of pleasure in being able to collaborate with someone who can keep up with you intellectually, who gets excited by ideas the way you do, and whose area(s) of expertise don't always overlap with yours. Awesome. Somehow, this turned into a discussion of why Jeff rocks so hard.
4. Lists that work.
Okay. So I couldn't come up with a fourth thing to complete my list (or maybe I'm just lazy), but I'm already in a better mood than when I started this post, feeling much more energized and enthusiastic than when I was bitching in my head about people being stupid on the internet. So, yay for focusing on the good stuff in life and staying centered in gratitude and appreciation!