Acceptable?

Why is it that Christianity is the only acceptable religion in the United States? It seems that any other religious belief is completely and totally ostracized from the public view. Regardless of what your personal beliefs are, in a society that bases a huge amount of its self-worth on ideals of "freedom," religious or otherwise, does anyone honestly think that a public affirmation of faith that is different from our western Christian one would be as readily accepted?

Case in point, while attending a graduation the other day I came across something like this. The final speaker of the night, while thanking those around her, gave a final and thoughtful thanks to "God." It struck me as weird that no one seemed to think that her statements were unacceptable, and I even heard some "amens" through the crowd. Obviously she was talking about the Christian God, I hardly doubt she was referencing the "God of the Philosophers," a sort of abstract notion of a religious being, and it made me wonder whether or not her statements would have been as readily accepted if she would have referenced another religious view point. If someone would have said "praise be to Allah" I think there would have been some discontent, at the least, and maybe even a downright upheaval.

I'm not promoting any religion over another, nor am I trying to be some kind of cool non-religious person. I do think that religion does, and probably should, play a meaningful role in everyone's life. What I am saying, however, is that in a society that's making an attempt to be as non-judgmental as possible, which I think is the overwhelming majority despite "Tea Party" idiots, should one religious preference be more acceptable than any other?

Refreshing!

I saw something the other day on an info-mercial, for "Orgreenic" cookware (don't ask), and it really made me think. Pretty much every commercial that comes to mind, when portraying cooking, or cleaning, or any other household chore, usually chooses to show a woman doing all the work. Women are usually the "homemakers," they are the ones "taking care of everything" around the house and involving the children, and it's very rare that the man of the house is shown in this role. Men are usually shown coming home wearing a suit and a loosened tie, showing their hard day at work as bread-winners.

In the info-mercial there was a testimonial being given by someone that was pleased with their purchase of the product. The person was raving about how the product made cooking easier, cleaner, blah, blah, blah. The interesting thing, however, was that the person was a man. He was gawking over the fact that the cookware helped him to "cook healthier for his three kids," and he was raving about how the cookware made his "job" easier. His JOB! There was even a video of the man cooking and serving dinner to his kids while the wife was hanging out in the background watching. Could it be possible that the man was a stay-at-home dad?

I think it really takes something like this to show how much of a role patriarchal assumptions still play in today's world. Even with the status of women being raised higher than it has ever been, why is it that it's still uncommon, and even down-right weird, to see a man shown as the stay-at-home parent? Is it still so unbelievable that the woman has left the kitchen? This makes me wonder how long it will be before it's no longer "weird" to see more dad's fulfilling stay-at-home roles while their wives are out working.

Heidegger was Right

Sitting on my couch typing this, as well as watching television and listening to my Zune (iPods are for losers), I can't help but think about Heidegger's ideas about technology. Inside Being and Time, an awesome book you should read that no one really understands, Heidegger talks about how technology makes its presence felt in our "average everydayness." He explains that being surrounded by so much technology allows us to completely absorb ourselves in technology so that we won't be preoccupied with the more important things in life, namely our own existential death. For Heidegger, the ultimate for our existence was the realization of its breakdown; we are nothing more than "thrown projection," beings that think about our own possibilities while being part of a social situation, and because of this our "own-most possibility" is to realize this nothingness. This realization is scary, and because of it we run from it towards something safe and familiar.

Whether or not you buy into any of this, my feelings are that most people won't, it seems that we do just this in our everyday dealings with things. How many people have watched television and surfed on the web at the same time? Who reads an e-book on their iPad while looking at pictures, listening to music, and surfing the web? Whether or not you buy into Heidegger's notions of the self is irrelevant; it's easy to see that the introduction and dissemination of technology within society has caused fundamental changes in how we interact with the world. Be it an unwillingness to confront ourselves, or just a need to be "up-to-date" with the world, it seems that technology is becoming eerily prevalent in our lives. Even more eerie, however, may be the prediction that technology would become so prominent by a man writing over eighty years ago.

Intro

This blog is going to be an attempt to garner some sort of readership by provoking interesting thought and insight among readers. I'll make no attempt to exercise specific wit or humor within it; that's not to say that the attempt will never be made. It's merely a forum for discussion and analysis of what I think are pressing assumptions and beliefs within society that deserve an eye turned towards them, something I think feminist theory does exceedingly well, hence the title of the blog. I intend to take a look at these assumptions and provide my own insights, bolstered by the thoughts and works of greater minds from time to time, in an attempt to hone my writing skills while also providing the aforementioned impetus for thought and discussion.

Failure of my intentions may be unavoidable, but "Qui audet adipiscitur" still prevails.