|
Comment replies will be delayed a bit again, as we're shaped, and it's just annoying to try and do stuff online. Also, I'm still mildly ill.
For people reading this on LiveJournal: I haven't read LJ for about a month, maybe more. At some point I'll be picking up reading again, but not until tomorrow at the earliest, when we're not shaped any more; if there's anything I've missed that you think I should know, let me know.
I've been occupying myself reading Deadpool comics. Because Deadpool is awesome. (And loves Bea Arthur.)
I've realised that I have this odd parameter set for reading comics. I like comics that take themselves Very Seriously Indeed (e.g. Sandman, Lucifer was deeply flawed but still readable, etc.) or just take their subject matter seriously (e.g. early Authority, but not Preacher, because Preacher was trying way too hard to be blasphemous and ended up just being kind of crap after the first couple of trade paperbacks). In order to read them I need the art to be reasonable, too - the first couple of Authority TPBs were awesome, and then suddenly the art changed and became hideous and I couldn't stand it.
(No, I dont read anything with Liefeld "art" if I can help it. My cat could scratch a better Cable if you let him play with the paper.)
At the other extreme, I like comics that don't take themselves seriously at all, that play with meta just because they can, like Deadpool or Top Ten.
Stuff in the middle - stuff that just rolls on through the story, but isn't trying to be Deep - doesn't grab me. I like reading ABOUT those sorts of comics - reading summaries, descriptions, and meta on Iron Man or Captain America or Superman or Batman or X-Men - I just don't like the comics themselves that much. (Unless it's specific issues I've been recced, and where the art is really, really pretty.)
Today's image is toilet vampires.
|
|
So, this evening I went to this: (Im)Possible Faith: Atheism, Agnosticism and Belief.
It was an interesting evening, on a range of levels - all three of the panellists were quite moderate, and quite interesting people in their own right. Dr Colette Livermore, representing atheism, is a doctor now, but was once a Missionaries of Charity nun who worked with Mother Teresa. Tracy Ryan is a novelist/poet and self-proclaimed agnostic.
And, representing the faithful, we had the remarkable A/Prof Sister Veronica Brady, who opened by saying she felt she too is an agnostic. (Because she doesn't believe a human can fully know and understand the meaning of God.) I spoke to her briefly at the end - she remains wonderful.
I'd forgotten to take pen and paper, so my notes are very brief, written in whiteboard marker on a Zoo flyer I had in my bag.
Tracy Ryan's introductory remarks were interesting, and in places wildly problematic. For instance, she said that her parents had been part of a British colonial family in India, so her mostly-Catholic upbringing had included a light version of some yogic teachings. As far as I could tell, she hasn't thought in any real sense about colonialism, appropriation, or the degree to which she can legitimately claim understanding of yogic teachings at all. Meanwhile, talking about Christ, she said that she thought, from a feminist perspective, that the idea of putting others before yourself was problematic, because women are often asked to put their own needs second already.
To me, you can't go down that path and just look it only as far as it affects women who are not otherwise disempowered, when Christianity's role in colonial power dynamics has been so huge. It's just... her ideas are too unexamined and vague, I think, and I suddenly have a very real sense of why certain people have a problem with mainstream feminism and its blank ignoring of issues beyond white middle-class women.
Sister Veronica Brady talked about how you can't define God for other people - she's really not your traditional Roman Catholic, but her way of talking about this stuff seems so right and sensible. I don't have detailed enough notes to do it justice.
Audience question period brought some serious aggravation, especially in the form of Prepared Statement Woman.
By the way she reacted as she took the mic from the moderator - something about her insipid smile, perhaps - I pegged her instantly as a nutbag, and then thought I was being horribly judgemental and uncharitable. Turns out, I should trust my instincts.
She had several pages of notes and prepared statements, opening with her reading out her own Statement of Faith - which had five subsections detailing her personal religious beliefs. And then she went on, and on, rambling about crap that made no freaking sense, until an audience that had gathered for discussion about faith in a way that was open to the belief spectrum was starting to laugh at her, and heckle her to sit down and stop talking, already. After the third time the moderator tried and failed to get her to wrap it up and ASK AN ACTUAL QUESTION, I got up and took the mic with force of personality and will.
At that point, she was expressing her view that the Catholic Church attacks abortion because it's a female sin, and ignores war because it's a male sin, and the way to end warfare and bring about peace on earth is to genetically modify men to reduce their hormonal impulses.
No, really.
After that I asked my question, and other people asked actual questions, and the discussion was interesting, although a few other audience members were also kind of irritating.
I'll probably post more about some of these topics later - right now I'm tired and a bit too irritated by certain things.
|
|
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}