people like this exist?

now.  i KNOW in my head that people like reverend john hagee exist.  there’s been enough conservatism and sexism in my life or at least enough that i have been made aware of to KNOW things like this get said.
but seriously.  i didn’t think it was real.  something like… i KNOW it’s possible to make an eiffel tower as a yo-yo trick, but who the hell DOES that?

this guy.
thanks to my favourite feminist blog, feministing, i now know reverend hagee is the yo-yo trick MASTER of right-wing christianity.

i’m glad i will never be a stay at home dad who happens to encounter rev. hagee.  with any luck, i will never be the sole provider of income for my household or, you know, be in a lesbian relationship and encounter this man.
his interpretation of scripture is perverted nonsense.  he says paul discusses in 1st timothy that lazy bum dads are going to hell.  really?
i can understand his view, kind of, if i was completely supporting my husband and there were no children.  but i don’t plan on marrying a starving artist or a pot-head musician, you know?  and even then, he’s utterly condemning and irrational.
but rev. hagee isn’t referring to those men, although i’d love to hear the hell-fire they’ve got in store for them.  he is completely referring to men who stay at home taking care of their children.
first, it’s becoming common knowledge that paul didn’t actually write 1st or 2nd timothy, but that’s not the point.  for convenience let’s say he did; even strict, sometimes harsh paul the apostle never said anything about men being providers of the household.  just because mr. hagee’s sensibilities are jarred by a little gender liberation and role reversal does not mean he can direct the scripture on laziness at husbands who are supported by their wives.
second, stay-at-home dads aren’t lazy.  point blank period.  him accusing them at that is saying stay-at-home MOTHERS are lazy as well!  apparently he’s never been in charge of raising children.  because being a mother is an intense, taxing, never-ending, no sick days, no sleeping in on the weekends kind of job, not to mention all the things i don’t know about being a mother being that i’m not one.
clearly, rev. hagee is under the impression that child-rearing is beneath him.  that’s a humble man if i’ve ever seen one.  humility is having a level-headed, rational, generally objective outlook at your station in the world among God and men.  i think that rev. hagee has a slightly grandiose idea of the responsibilities God has ‘placed on men.’
i don’t believe that God ever meant for there to be gender roles in the first place.  ever.  they came with the fall, and as society evolves, as it’s transformed by the renewing of our minds (romans 12:2), i firmly believe they will become less and less prevalent in society.


look both ways

i just remembered inter-library loan exists and about threw a party.
the books coming from OSU came in the quickest, being poetry as insurgent art by laurence ferlinghetti, and look both ways: bisexual politics by jennifer baumgardener (who, i read, dated The amy ray who is half of The lesbian folk band the indigo girls).
naturally, this is about the bisexual politics book.

i think this book SO incredibly timely.  the thing (well, one of them) about bisexuality is that people don’t believe it exists.  and if they do, it’s seen as some sort of confusion or as if the bi person is flawed.  ask your average 20-something male; if he’d be okay with dating a bi girl it’s simply because men often see lesbianism as some mystical treasure, only so attractive as it remains unattainable.  don’t even deny it.  people chase what they can’t have, and men have been trained their entire lives that their role is hunter.  the fiercer they have to hunt, the more manly they feel.  lesbians are the most elusive creature.  bisexual girls, however, are some mad mix of that lesbian they can’t have and a straight target they can achieve, earn.
that’s the exception, however unfortunate that is.
i don’t really understand Why straight men are wary of bisexual girls.  i can’t even really theorise, except i was recently told, “men want to hunt.  and you want to hunt like the men, which is one thing, but you also want to hunt alone.”  yeah, it’s kind of sexist babble, trust me, i know.  but i think what he meant was a lesbian can hunt in the pack with the men.  she’s aggressive and it’s okay.  but if a girl wants to hunt men And women, she’s going to be hunting alone because the men won’t want to hunt with a girl who’s hunting them back.  he meant bisexuality goes against nature because it isn’t choosing a natural role to abide by.
(he doesn’t realise that a girl could choose to fill a certain role all the time, finding people of each gender to that fit the other role.  that’s not my style though.)

i’m hoping this book talks about that awful catch-22.  for me, it’s validation.  for me it’s someone in the academic and social world saying, “look, bisexuality is no myth.  we’re not confused, we’re not damaged, we’re not going to choose one side or the other eventually.  this is real and valid and to be take seriously.”

i’ll keep you updated.