the situation is always fluid

In light of, well, you know, I've decided to compile some thoughts. My guess is that they will not form a logical thread of a normal, well-written post, but I suppose we'll have to see.

1: sin is real.

And it's the reason for all of the crazy bullshit that goes on in the world, and it attacks and damages and destroys everyone, regardless of who you are or where you come from or what you believe in. People hurt and kill each other. Disasters happen. Injustice is everywhere across the world. And we're not safe from ourselves, either—regardless of how hard we might try to Do the Right Thing, we're not perfect. We all have our flaws, whether we can identify them or not, and even those of us who are struggling to live better lives, to be better people, are still, and will always be, fighting an upward battle. You can't avoid it, whether you are a Christ-follower or not. [1] And, I'm sorry to say, there is approximately zero chance of that changing—at least not while we're here on earth.

Certainly, we should do what we can to walk the right path, to prevent injustice, to protect and support those weaker or less fortunate than ourselves, to love all people as God has loved us. But so long as we're here, there will be no end to the terrible things that happen.

Sin just is, and it's awful, and it takes no sides but its own.

2: america is not a christian nation.

Reminder: we left England because we wanted religious freedom—not so we could use our faith to bully other people into living the way we want them to. The very concept of having religious freedom centers on the idea that all people should have that freedom, and that, perhaps, the government should keep its nose out of other people's business. [2]

I've had a handful of conversations with people about voting your beliefs, and that one is tricky for me. As a follower of Christ, I follow his teachings, and he teaches that there is only one Way, one Truth, and one Life [3]. And, as such, I don't (can't?) align with the pluralistic idea that whatever works for you is okay.

That said: I'm not (as I hope you know) the kind of person who just throws my beliefs and opinions in people's faces, because, while I and my faith do adhere to a "One Way" belief, I also don't expect anyone to change their mind simply because "I told them it was the right thing to do." The Way of Jesus is love and compassion, and I strive to follow that path, regardless of whether we believe the same thing, regardless of whether my heart hurts for you as a result of my belief. One of my (many) personal uphill battle(s) is that of finding the courage to share those beliefs, even when I sense that they may not be well received, but this struggle comes from a place of desperately wanting to share the love and the hope that I have through my faith.

Many people, even people that I know and care about, are relatively opposed to hearing about God and Christianity. This is primarily and unsurprisingly because the majority of their experiences with Christianity have been the hatred and judgment that so often radiates from "Christian" communities.[4] And yes, while the Bible draws some pretty explicit (and some unfortunately less-explicit) lines in the sand, Jesus also spent his entire ministry hanging out with sinners, even while completely physically and emotionally exhausted. Ranting and shaming and pointing fingers has never gotten anyone anywhere, nor is it what Christians are called to do. [5]

Anyway where was I — right — voting your beliefs. I struggle with this because I put my faith in God and not in the country, and I also recognize that a functional democracy is one that actually allows its people to live the way they want to. And—in case you were confused—democracy and Christianity are not the same thing. Democracy, in order to work, needs to allow people to live in the way that works for them. My belief system, however, doesn't really work that way. So... do I vote for what makes sense for democracy, because I think that certain laws and rulings and what-have-you create an oppressive, not-in-the-spirit-of-love government system? or do I vote based solely on what MY beliefs are, and let the rest shake out as it may?

The point I am trying to make is this: the Kingdom of God is not the same as earthly government, and democracy should not, and cannot, be used as a tool for spreading the Word and love of Christ. That's on you, kids.

3: in an attempt to pull this together

I think this all comes up because I'm tired—more tired than I have ever been as a result of politics. I've never voted in a presidential election before, because I've never been this invested, and (as a result) I've never been more disappointed in or alarmed by the results. I'm wishing that I had said some of this sooner (not that I think it would have made much of a difference, but you know), but more importantly—I'm tired of not saying any of this at all.

I'm a Christian. I'm a feminist. [6] I'm not a republican (was I ever?). I regularly attend a confessional Lutheran church (which is one of the more traditional/conservative brands). I think that church and state should be actually separated in order for democracy to work. [7] I think that many Christians need to seriously and carefully consider what they say and post on social media, because no matter how caught up you can get, just because something has a seed or suggestion of Christian belief doesn't make it something that spreads the love of Christ. [8] The same goes for everyone, really, but I feel that I currently only have the right to admonish my own people. Because Christians are my people, and—as I have said—no one is perfect, and sometimes judgment can be a good thing.

The point is that I'm tired of worrying that my non-Christian friends will think differently of me for being an ardent, conservative-belief'd Christian. I'm tired of worrying that family members will berate me for my political leanings or for not trying to put on a show of being a straight-laced good girl, when in fact I am just as real and flawed and struggling as the next person. And if nothing else, this election season/process has made it much easier for me to stop caring so much.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that to live means to suffer. But we aren't alone, and God's love is unchanging and eternal.

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. [9]

Take heart. He has overcome the world. [10]

---
[1] actually, you can't avoid it especially if you are a Christ-follower, but that's a somewhat different angle on what I'm getting at here.
[2] credit to Amanda and/or Jasmine, although I can't remember which of you made this point so concisely.
[3] spoiler: it's him.
[4] judgment is not always bad, however, and I also believe that being judged by someone (in a loving way or not) can do a lot for the whole 'being a better person' thing. even if/when it sucks to hear. and the tricky part is deciphering when it's actually constructive criticism and when the other person is just being an asshole. anyway, that's not the point I'm making here, so if you're mad that I said Christianity isn't about judgment, please review Ephesians 4:1-7 and 1 Corinthians 13 and then just let it go because you might be part of the problem.
[5] so cut it out already, because the only people I've been tempted to "de-friend" are, in fact, largely fellow brothers and/or sisters in Christ. that alarms me. don't be part of the problem.
[6] if you knew me in high school or early college: your surprise is well-founded. let this mark the first time that I have clearly and publicly stated this, and I regret nothing.
[7] I also think this country's "democracy" needs an epic overhaul, but hell if I have any idea what that actually means.
[8] I'd just like it on record that Matt Walsh is a tremendous asshole. I got excited about something he posted, once, because it articulated something that I had been trying to put into words—and then I realized that he's a bigot with a chip on his shoulder who does nothing to display a Christlike humility or compassion. and yes, I recognize the irony in my calling him an asshole and then being unkind to him in the same fashion, but I'm over it (see above).
[9] 2 Corinthians 4:16-18
[10] John 16:33

here, have a lame non-post

...because it's really kind of silly to just repost someone else's blog, but seriously, this one, Men and Women are Not Equal, speaks to my soul. plus it's a lot more straightforward than what i probably would have done.

I'm writing a book called "How to Make Enemies" ... let me know if you want an autographed copy

I'm on dangerous ground here. You may know that I like to stay away (far, far away) from today's social issues and politics, because there's too much emotion riding on everything and I have noticed that it is generally hard for people to see reason when they're on a soapbox.

But therein, kids, lies the problem. The pursuit of Justice and Equality is never actually a reasonable one. It's always skewed by someone's agenda, someone's pride, or someone's real or imagined (but mostly imagined) suffering. It's far nobler to fight for a cause than to just look out for ourselves, but when we fight for a generalized cause, we tend to lose sight of ... well, reason. Intelligent, semi-objective, philosophical thought. All of it, out the window, because it's the idea that counts (right?), and not the specifics. [1]

So what got me so riled up that I decided to step out of my cave and make some enemies? Two things that will always provoke in me some ~~feelings: Doctor Who and Feminism.

I've been sitting on this rant since I read this article. Today, I read this one. And I'm already mad at my boss, so it's easy to sort of channel that anger into an I-don't-care-I'm-gonna-say-it-anyway-this-is-my-gorram-blog kind of post. You have been warned. It's not too late to turn back.

[Also, I have issued a Spoiler Alert for the rest of the post.]

Ladies and gentlemen (have you ever noticed that this very common phrase begins with "ladies"? Interesting.), I find this whole "the Doctor should be a woman!" rant to be quite disheartening. Maybe if the arguments were, I don't know, solid, I could get behind them. But when the premise of the argument is made with unsupported claims, they effectively make the people arguing them (and thus, the cause as a whole) look idiotic. (please see [1] again because it applies here too)

Kissell and Helmuth are opposed to having "yet another white British dude" [*] playing the Doctor for, as far as I can tell, two reasons:
a) the Doctor has thus far always played by British white guys, and clearly that's the sexist choice to portray men superior to women, and
b) because the show/Moffat portrays women as "sad and broken." [**]

...wait, what? Sad and broken? Have you even watched the show before, Elizabeth Lopatto?! Let's examine her argument for just a minute: "I'm fine with the next Doctor being a dude, as long as we get more interesting women and a more emotionally competent writer." [**]

I see two glaring problems with this sentence alone. The first is "more interesting women," and the second is "a more emotionally competent writer."

Lady, do you realize that the reason this show is so popular is the overwhelming amount of emotional connection viewers have with the characters and the story? "The Girl in the Fireplace" was the reason many of us fell in love with the Doctor in the first place, because of how much he cared about Reinette and how devastated he was that she died before he came back for her, even though he barely knew her. "Silence in the Library" and "Forest of the Dead," once you understand why, have one of the more tragic plot elements I've ever seen, and the kicker is that you don't even realize how tragic until well into season 6 (I'm not telling you if you don't know). "Amy's Choice" presents the question everyone is asking--Rory or the Doctor?--in a way that makes you sit on the edge of your seat and wonder which Amy will choose, because you sure as hell can't decide for yourself. I don't think the problem is that he isn't "emotionally competent." If it's just that you don't like the way he plays with your emotion, then don't watch the show.

And then--more interesting women? Because Clara, who jumped into the Doctor's entire timeline and rescued him without him even realizing it, and Rose, who absorbed the time vortex to defeat the Daleks, and Martha, who traveled the world to save the Doctor, while being hunted by tiny childlike weapon-aliens, aren't interesting enough? And how could I forget "abuse victim River Song, whose lives are stolen from her by the man she loves, for whom she later goes to jail for a crime she didn't commit; although placeholder/perfume model Amy Pond should get special mention for blandness." Yep, that's right, abuse victim River Song, who is so wounded and broken, except for the part where she stares down a Dalek until it cries for mercy, and how she has the Doctor wrapped around her finger and he doesn't even realize it. Because Amy Pond is a bland placeholder--bland?! really?? you couldn't find any other word? What about Donna, who saved the Doctor and the world and created the Doctor-Donna, and can't even remember it? If that's not "interesting" then I can't help you, Elizabeth. And if you don't like your characters to be "sad and broken" then stick to picture books, because I can think of no great work of literature that doesn't feature someone who isn't sad or broken in some way.

Honestly, it's not the cry for a female Doctor that bothers me. In fact, I think that would be quite the road to go down. From a literary perspective, or a philosophical one, or even from a "hey let's just mix things up!" perspective, it would be very cool if the Doctor was a woman. I'm just honestly so offended at the weak and ridiculous arguments being made for it to happen. It's evident that Laura Helmuth [**] isn't overly familiar with the show, based on the fact that she slips up and says "an actor playing Doctor Who" instead of "an actor playing the Doctor."

Of course, she also refers to Tim Minchin as a "dreamboat." [**] Do you see how her credibility might be plummeting?

Ted B. Kissell [*] actually started to form an argument that might have made sense; one of the most compelling statements I've heard on the subject is his comment on "Moffat's handling of his female leads," which was that "River Song, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald--all of them were mysteries for the Doctor to solve, instead of simply people."

You know what, that's a fair point. [2] This one makes me think a little: does the Doctor just view his companions as mysteries to solve? I can see the argument about those three companions. But then, the Doctor also sort of treats everything as a mystery to solve--and what about Craig in "The Lodger"? He's a "dude" [3], plus, the only reason the Doctor moved in with him was the mystery on the second floor. So if we're arguing that the Doctor doesn't treat people as people, then we have to include...everyone. And that's an entirely different topic than the one at hand.

The other big point Kissell argues is the "structurally sexist" [4] element: "i.e., the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the male Doctor and his usually female companion." Let us keep in mind that Ted Kissell is upset about the fact that "the insidious cultural marinade known as The Patriarchy has penetrated your brain," so no one let on to him that he's a part of it. [5] Seriously though--the superiority argument is confusing to me. The fact that the Doctor has companions doesn't really seem establish a hierarchy. The term "companion" is an accurate description, and I fail to see how it's insulting. [6] The "inherent" distinction is between Time Lords and humans, but that seems appropriate, doesn't it? Besides, the Doctor needs a companion. He goes a little crazy (and a little miserable) without one. And haven't we just gone over the part where various companions save the Doctor, the world, the universe, reality, etc? These are the kinds of arguments that strike me as really trying to create a problem. Companions are only "inferior" if you choose to perceive them as such, but I don't think that perception is necessarily supported by the actual plotlines, given the textual (episodial?) evidence that the companions are friends, traveling partners, and often heroes.

Then again, why would Moffat make it clear that there could be a woman Doctor if he wasn't going to create one? [7] And what if the Doctor WAS played by a woman? I mean, "having a woman as the smartest, bravest person in the universe, being able to fix any problem, save the world with her wits, a magical vehicle, and boundless courage--who wouldn't want to watch that show?" [*] Sure, I would love to watch that show. It would be awesome. [8] But both Kissell and Helmuth make the observation that Moffat would obviously screw up the female Doctor, since "during the regeneration of Mels into River Song, after all, we were treated to such Moffaty gems as her 'focusing on a dress size,' weighing herself, and going shopping." [*] Because women don't do that? Ever? Wouldn't you, if you weren't a member of the insidious Patriarchy [9] and you transformed into a different body? I think (surprisingly!) Helmuth actually gets closer with her observation that "if Moffat writes us a female Twelve, I imagine she'll be just as sad and broken as the other women he's written." [**] That I actually agree with. And then inevitably, someone would complain that the Doctor was under too much pressure, and she never got the thanks she deserved. Someone else would argue that she was portrayed as too giving, too self-sacrificing, and her goodwill was being abused. Her maternal instinct would be subject to question--why does the fact that she's female mean that she has to take care of everyone? Is that like her role, just because she's a woman? Yet another indignant viewer would be upset that the Doctor's hard decisions made her look like the badguy, and how come she can't be better at saving everyone? Unless the argument is that a female Doctor would find a way to save the world without any casualties. In which case, I don't want to watch that show, because part of the beauty of it is the raw, realistic (well, sorta) element of "you can't win all the battles all the time." The Doctor has to make the hard decisions, and I don't think that should ever change.

I just ... I can't figure out what you want, Feminist Cause. I think it's power for all women, and to ensure that women are not portrayed in pop culture as inferior to men, but it doesn't seem like you're actually evaluating the story, or the characters' relationships, or the philosophy of the Doctor himself. The arguments you are making are sort of trickling through to sound like "I want a woman Doctor because there aren't enough women who do badass things in this show" (false) "and how come it's always weird rando British guys that no one has actually heard of until they were Doctors?" [10] In fact, you're so busy being upset about the fact that the title character is a man, that you're completely missing all the fantastic stuff women in this show are doing. And yeah, the characters are broken. Yeah, people get hurt, and the Doctor is a little bit of an island. But the Doctor doesn't change, not at his core, and we're used to him. It's the women of the show who keep it running, keep it interesting. It sounds like you want someone incapable of being wounded, someone with no sense of fashion, someone who is fearless and flawless and independent and perfect. But I think you would hate her twice as much as you hate that Twelve is a male Doctor.

But then again, I'm on my soapbox. Maybe I'm just not seeing reason.

---
[*] from "The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who's New Time Lord" (The Atlantic)
[**] from "The Next Doctor Should Be a Woman. You Should Care Even if You Don't Watch Doctor Who" (Slate.com)

[1] This applies to everything, including, mind you, a lot of Christian theology, which will sacrifice actual doctrine in order to support a cause like "evangelism" or "youth ministry." This is an entirely different rant but it was worth noting.
[2] Never mind that basically every woman I know wants to be a mystery ...
[3] Why do both of these authors refer to men as "dudes"? Are they trying to be insensitive to men in order to dole out some justice? Or something?
[4] He took that quote from some other blog, but if you read the article you can find it for yourself. This ain't no research paper, deal with it.
[5] Or that his "favorite doctor, Tennant," is also "another white guy." Just sayin.
[6] Merriam-Webster's first definition is "one that accompanies another: comrade, associate; also: one that keeps company with another."
[7] Maybe because it's an interesting fact for the Doctor Who trivia bank, like the fact that he has children. Or maybe because Moffat is going to change the Doctor into a woman or something, and wouldn't that cause an uproar (and make a lot of people feel really stupid).
[8] Arguably, I watch it every time I sit down to watch Doctor Who. But I think I must be watching a different show than everyone else ...
[9] That's HIS capitalization, by the way, and he didn't capitalize any of the terms he uses to refer to women. Someone explain this to me.
[10] Really, I just wanted to use the word "rando" because it makes me giggle.