regarding world views
Having been going to church the last few Sundays (and no, I did not spontaneously decombust, nor did I require any medical assistance for brain damage afterward) and I have to say, there has been something sinking in that I don't quite entirely condone here.
Recently I've been hearing a lot on the (rather vague, if you ask me) topic of "world view" and how advertising companies, various different forms of media, peers, superiors, ect all impact and influence one's "world view" in a manner that many people would not suspect. Last night was an interesting little lecture about the staggering amount of time spent watching television, and the even more horrifying amount of time and money spent by advertising companies used in duping the masses into buying Snuggies, or tobacco products, and various other terrifically awful products. The conjecture that I got out of this - and trust me, this was no more than reading between the implicatations, because at face value this was little more than a fourty-five minute slide show displaying statistics and regurgitated information - was that our "world view" was mostly comprised of shit we see on television and an apparent lack of decent parenting.
Well no shit.
I was under the impression that this was common knowledge. Evidently not. That said, now that we have THAT groundwork out of the way, I'd like to continue this discussion where Mr. Jay Lippy left off. Perhaps this is frowned upon, but at least I was listening which I can not say for a good 70% of the congregation (especially the two rowes of shitty twelve year olds with droid phones texting each other fiendishly and watching youtube videos the whole time).
After church let out, I decided to dissect my own world view (again..... I do this frequently, mostly out of boredom and occasionally out of genuine interest) to gain a bit of insight into the validity of the statistics presented to me, and to see just how jaded I actually am. This first led me to uncover a couple fatal flaws in the Lippy-lecture and I will cover those as a preface to my own descent into madness.
Complaint number one stemms from Mr. Lippy's condemnation of the fashion industry and the allegation that designers and the emaciated models in thier employ is the sole cause of anorexia and bulemia. This is simply not so. First and foremost, I feel like it must be stated that the fashion industry does not cater to women. Oh no. The fashion industry caters to men, by designing clothing that make women more desirable. This is made excruciatingly evident at any fashion show conceivable. What women would ever CHOOSE to wear clothing that looks as though it would be better suited as a hair accessory for a toddler? No one. Unless they wanted to be asthetically pleasing in the eyes of thier target of affection. And who might that be? Men. Or I supposed butch lesbians. Either way, this is obviously not for women (unless you count the butch lesbian demographic.... which is sort of cheating, really). Also, lets not disqualify all the men out there expecting thier girlfriends, daughters, wives, mistresses, what have you to look like these malnourished waifs! Case in point: my mother has told me almost everyday since I turned 13 that I was a fatass that needed to lose weight. So yes, women have some serious self-image problems but is it because they watch too much tv? I'd wager no. I know too many women who watch almost no tv that continue to struggle with image problems.
Complaint number two, Mr. Lippy seems to be implying that the average American parent is allowing thier television set to raise thier children, yet does not condemn that parent for this but the media instead. Now, as a parent myself, I can assure you that I have exactly no problem with putting on Yo Gabba Gabba at six-thirty in the god forsaken morning, when my two and a half year old gets up, and going back to sleep on the couch after settling him in with a pop tart. I do not see this as irresponsible parenting, however as I am almost entirely certain that if I were to not get that crucual two hour siesta that I would not be such an enjoyable mother. And no one benefits from that. Be that as it may, I do not let my kid watch just anything and when we do watch television or movies together I make it a point to explain to him what is happening in the always age appropriate media. Obviously, most parents are not doing this. My ex-husband's parents thought it would be acceptable to allow thier six year old to view American History X, without explanation or any kind of lesson to aid the youngster in understanding just how atrocious racism and violence truly are. Without that background, how does a six year old make sense of something as horrifically graphic and obscene as this movie is (regardless of its historical and moral relevance)? That, Sir, is not an iresponsible media, but plain old terrible parenting.
With all this out of the way, what I saw when I looked into myself was just a little more muddled than I recalled it being last time. I was slightly alarmed. I am typically pretty decent about defining why I do, think, say, and beleive things.
Here is what I know: I was raised by two relatively conservative parents, sheltered until the age of 11 (by twelve I'd been raped, so good riddence to innocence), in the Catholic church, with four other younger siblings. I remember I always detested going to church, always thought that divinity was a fucking joke, and consequently never took religion very seriously. I can't seem to explain that, given my upbrining, and that bothers me even to this day. It would stand to reason that my world view would be a lot more heavily influenced by religion. But no. This is what baffles my parents. It wasn't that they raised me incorrectly. I am simply a bad apple. I am the nature counter-argument to nurture's stranglehold on modern psychology. No matter what I do, I can not seem to shake that.
It always seemed perfectly natural to me that if "god" existed, it was certainly not some bearded entity in the sky, wagging a finger at humanity good naturedly as if we would be sent to time out the next time we beat our wife unconcious, or locked our kid in the closet. From a young age I can recall going to Catholic mass and thinking it was beyond hokie, and so was that iconic image of our creator. Perhaps my problem is that, as yet, I can not seem to find a decent alternative to that. Then again, maybe that's the point.
Never the less, as I grew older and as I experienced more of the world - my parents had all but given up on me normalling off any time in the near future, and I was thankful to be left the hell alone about it - it began getting clearer and clearer that there was no middle ground when it came to holding a set of beleifs. You either did, or you didn't beleive. And you had sets A through Z to choose from. Nothing more. That seems like a lot, but when it comes to one's very existence, 26 different options just is not enough.
I wasn't really an athiest, as I did beleive there was certainly something greater than myself out there in the cold universe. I was definitely not agnostic. Just because I can't put a definition on what that entity was did not signify that I was on the fence about whether or not I beleived in its existence. I very obviously was not Christian (at least, not in the same sense as my parents looked at it) and since every other religion was based around essentially the same monotheistic view points, I thought perhaps I ought to just rule out monotheism and see what shook loose.
Dismayingly, I found it more difficult to beleive that there were multiple "gods" than it was to beleive there was just one.
Square one. I can't explain the universe. Eventually, I stopped trying and accepted that if there was something out there, it was content to work behind the scenes. After struggling for years to either prove or disprove a divine creator, I relented. Looking at my world and my life now, I decided to simply take things at face value. Be thankful for the good, and realize that when bad things happen there is always a way out if you're clever enough to find it, so stay on your toes and don't give up. That has served me just fine until recently.
Recently is my dillema. Recently I have been going to church with my husband. And no, that was not my idea. Church obviously takes on a religious world view point, and since I tend to listen to all sides of an argument, I figured there has not been a person in this world yet that hasn't had at least ONE good idea and maybe I could get a fresh perspective on things.
Not the case. I feel the same as I always have, and I'm not sure if I should be upset by that or not but it brings me full circle to explaining my world view.
The conclusion that I came to was that no one can truly be considered a human being if they are not influenced by the world around them in all of its fury, terror, cataclysm, unbridled agony, incalculable happiness, warmth, serendipity, peace, and granduer. So be influenced, by all means. Be moved. Be pummeled. Be lifted. Be trampled. Be. Your world view isn't the aggregate of influences that you will be faced with in a lifetime, but what you learn from them.
What have I learned? That is a question that will never have a permenant answer, but I'm fairly certain I will pass the test.
Recently I've been hearing a lot on the (rather vague, if you ask me) topic of "world view" and how advertising companies, various different forms of media, peers, superiors, ect all impact and influence one's "world view" in a manner that many people would not suspect. Last night was an interesting little lecture about the staggering amount of time spent watching television, and the even more horrifying amount of time and money spent by advertising companies used in duping the masses into buying Snuggies, or tobacco products, and various other terrifically awful products. The conjecture that I got out of this - and trust me, this was no more than reading between the implicatations, because at face value this was little more than a fourty-five minute slide show displaying statistics and regurgitated information - was that our "world view" was mostly comprised of shit we see on television and an apparent lack of decent parenting.
Well no shit.
I was under the impression that this was common knowledge. Evidently not. That said, now that we have THAT groundwork out of the way, I'd like to continue this discussion where Mr. Jay Lippy left off. Perhaps this is frowned upon, but at least I was listening which I can not say for a good 70% of the congregation (especially the two rowes of shitty twelve year olds with droid phones texting each other fiendishly and watching youtube videos the whole time).
After church let out, I decided to dissect my own world view (again..... I do this frequently, mostly out of boredom and occasionally out of genuine interest) to gain a bit of insight into the validity of the statistics presented to me, and to see just how jaded I actually am. This first led me to uncover a couple fatal flaws in the Lippy-lecture and I will cover those as a preface to my own descent into madness.
Complaint number one stemms from Mr. Lippy's condemnation of the fashion industry and the allegation that designers and the emaciated models in thier employ is the sole cause of anorexia and bulemia. This is simply not so. First and foremost, I feel like it must be stated that the fashion industry does not cater to women. Oh no. The fashion industry caters to men, by designing clothing that make women more desirable. This is made excruciatingly evident at any fashion show conceivable. What women would ever CHOOSE to wear clothing that looks as though it would be better suited as a hair accessory for a toddler? No one. Unless they wanted to be asthetically pleasing in the eyes of thier target of affection. And who might that be? Men. Or I supposed butch lesbians. Either way, this is obviously not for women (unless you count the butch lesbian demographic.... which is sort of cheating, really). Also, lets not disqualify all the men out there expecting thier girlfriends, daughters, wives, mistresses, what have you to look like these malnourished waifs! Case in point: my mother has told me almost everyday since I turned 13 that I was a fatass that needed to lose weight. So yes, women have some serious self-image problems but is it because they watch too much tv? I'd wager no. I know too many women who watch almost no tv that continue to struggle with image problems.
Complaint number two, Mr. Lippy seems to be implying that the average American parent is allowing thier television set to raise thier children, yet does not condemn that parent for this but the media instead. Now, as a parent myself, I can assure you that I have exactly no problem with putting on Yo Gabba Gabba at six-thirty in the god forsaken morning, when my two and a half year old gets up, and going back to sleep on the couch after settling him in with a pop tart. I do not see this as irresponsible parenting, however as I am almost entirely certain that if I were to not get that crucual two hour siesta that I would not be such an enjoyable mother. And no one benefits from that. Be that as it may, I do not let my kid watch just anything and when we do watch television or movies together I make it a point to explain to him what is happening in the always age appropriate media. Obviously, most parents are not doing this. My ex-husband's parents thought it would be acceptable to allow thier six year old to view American History X, without explanation or any kind of lesson to aid the youngster in understanding just how atrocious racism and violence truly are. Without that background, how does a six year old make sense of something as horrifically graphic and obscene as this movie is (regardless of its historical and moral relevance)? That, Sir, is not an iresponsible media, but plain old terrible parenting.
With all this out of the way, what I saw when I looked into myself was just a little more muddled than I recalled it being last time. I was slightly alarmed. I am typically pretty decent about defining why I do, think, say, and beleive things.
Here is what I know: I was raised by two relatively conservative parents, sheltered until the age of 11 (by twelve I'd been raped, so good riddence to innocence), in the Catholic church, with four other younger siblings. I remember I always detested going to church, always thought that divinity was a fucking joke, and consequently never took religion very seriously. I can't seem to explain that, given my upbrining, and that bothers me even to this day. It would stand to reason that my world view would be a lot more heavily influenced by religion. But no. This is what baffles my parents. It wasn't that they raised me incorrectly. I am simply a bad apple. I am the nature counter-argument to nurture's stranglehold on modern psychology. No matter what I do, I can not seem to shake that.
It always seemed perfectly natural to me that if "god" existed, it was certainly not some bearded entity in the sky, wagging a finger at humanity good naturedly as if we would be sent to time out the next time we beat our wife unconcious, or locked our kid in the closet. From a young age I can recall going to Catholic mass and thinking it was beyond hokie, and so was that iconic image of our creator. Perhaps my problem is that, as yet, I can not seem to find a decent alternative to that. Then again, maybe that's the point.
Never the less, as I grew older and as I experienced more of the world - my parents had all but given up on me normalling off any time in the near future, and I was thankful to be left the hell alone about it - it began getting clearer and clearer that there was no middle ground when it came to holding a set of beleifs. You either did, or you didn't beleive. And you had sets A through Z to choose from. Nothing more. That seems like a lot, but when it comes to one's very existence, 26 different options just is not enough.
I wasn't really an athiest, as I did beleive there was certainly something greater than myself out there in the cold universe. I was definitely not agnostic. Just because I can't put a definition on what that entity was did not signify that I was on the fence about whether or not I beleived in its existence. I very obviously was not Christian (at least, not in the same sense as my parents looked at it) and since every other religion was based around essentially the same monotheistic view points, I thought perhaps I ought to just rule out monotheism and see what shook loose.
Dismayingly, I found it more difficult to beleive that there were multiple "gods" than it was to beleive there was just one.
Square one. I can't explain the universe. Eventually, I stopped trying and accepted that if there was something out there, it was content to work behind the scenes. After struggling for years to either prove or disprove a divine creator, I relented. Looking at my world and my life now, I decided to simply take things at face value. Be thankful for the good, and realize that when bad things happen there is always a way out if you're clever enough to find it, so stay on your toes and don't give up. That has served me just fine until recently.
Recently is my dillema. Recently I have been going to church with my husband. And no, that was not my idea. Church obviously takes on a religious world view point, and since I tend to listen to all sides of an argument, I figured there has not been a person in this world yet that hasn't had at least ONE good idea and maybe I could get a fresh perspective on things.
Not the case. I feel the same as I always have, and I'm not sure if I should be upset by that or not but it brings me full circle to explaining my world view.
The conclusion that I came to was that no one can truly be considered a human being if they are not influenced by the world around them in all of its fury, terror, cataclysm, unbridled agony, incalculable happiness, warmth, serendipity, peace, and granduer. So be influenced, by all means. Be moved. Be pummeled. Be lifted. Be trampled. Be. Your world view isn't the aggregate of influences that you will be faced with in a lifetime, but what you learn from them.
What have I learned? That is a question that will never have a permenant answer, but I'm fairly certain I will pass the test.