Deterlucem doesn't have a clue: Part 2

So here I am again, responding to Deterlucem's "Debunking The Most Powerful #Yesallwomen tweets" video. In my last post, I covered the first 6 tweets he has "debunked" and we've noted that he suffers from a annoying yet insidious tendency to assume that the women writing these tweets don't know what they're talking about. Does he display that same attitude for the remaining tweets? Very much so. Let's see.

Again, here is his video.

7. Michelle Wiss: Because I used to tip car drivers 40%  for "not raping and killing me" when I was in high school.
What he thinks: Deterlucem is quite offended by this tweet. He believes that Michelle must be really insecure and paranoid, and that if her behavior stems from a bad incident with a car driver, then maybe she should stop placing herself in "bad situations".

What I say: Admittedly, I think this tweet is kind of silly. I mean, paying people extra money just because they treat you like a decent human being? But I won't judge Michelle for her actions. If this was what she did to feel safe and thank people for their decency, then we should probably focus less on her actions themselves and more on why she did them. And I don't think it's necessarily insecurity. Maybe her behavior was due to a traumatic incident with a cab driver, and as mentioned above, Deterlucem does touch upon that for a moment but he immediately goes toward victim-blaming, demanding that she just stop putting herself in situations with cab drivers if she's that fearful. I don't understand how it doesn't occur to him that maybe Michelle had little alternative besides taking cab services. As much as he'd like to reduce the issue of rape to simple precaution taking, we still need to address the idea that so many men find it acceptable to sexually assault women in the first place.

8. Kate Tuttle: Girls grow up knowing it's safer to give a fake phone number than to turn a guy down.
What he thinks:  "Really? Really?" Deterlucem's reponse can be summarized in these three reactions: disbelief, "not all men!", and "take care of yourself". And he's offended. Again.

What I say: Yeah, Deterlucem. Really. I'm guessing he hasn't heard that story about the guy who stabbed a girl to death for rejecting his invitation to prom. Of course, that's an extreme example of what can happen if you reject a guy but my point (and I think Kate's point) is that girls often don't know the intentions and characters of the guys who ask them out. Maybe the guy is really nice and caring and respectful, but maybe he isn't that, and some girls are just afraid to turn the guy down, especially if he seems the aggressive type, so they legitimately feel that giving a fake phone number rather than directly turning them down is the safer option. It's not so really "all men out there are rapists!" but it's much more "I don't know who you really are or what you want with me. I'd like to believe you're decent but maybe you're not and I may not feel safe with you". That's the outlook with which many women grow up because they live in a world where sexual assault is so common. Of course, not all men who ask a girl out will hurt them, but how do you know who these guys are?

And I think it's a little bit hypocritical that Deterlucem is accusing Kate of living in "a paranoid delusional world" when he keeps calling in the video for women to take precautions and avoid bad situations and so on and so forth. Isn't Kate describing a possible precaution that women could take to protect themselves? I mean, he complains that the tweet lacks context but he must have no imagination because it's not hard to come up with one. In a scenario where a guy keeps pursuing a girl when she's not interested, the girl might realize that he doesn't really respect her autonomy that much and he may pose a danger to her so giving him a fake phone number may solve that problem in a much safer way. . I'm confident if Deterlucem would approach these women, they would not automatically suspect him of wanting to hurt them. He doesn't understand what Kate is saying. He may be a super nice guy but women cannot know that for sure at a first glance. To expect that women let their guard down to him in order to not insult his feelings is to expect women to let their guard down to all men, and that's disrespectful to their need for safety.

9. Ashley Ford: When I had a seizure in my home, the EMS guys asked my roommates if it was possible I was trying to get a boy's attention.
What he thinks: He says that the tweet lacks context, and is terrible but then blames her for not taking control of the situation.

What I say: I don't know, man. 140 characters isn't quite enough room to account for everything in a story. You say that it's an isolated incident but are you so sure? Would those EMS guys have said the same thing if it were a guy having a seizure? Sexism is sneaky, bro.

10. Leigh Alexander: Because when someone writes threats about us online, Twitter says that it is 'not abuse', not a warning sign, not even unusual.
What he thinks: Deterlucem states that men also receive online threats on Twitter and that Leigh should live in "the real world" and stop expecting "special treatment". He also recommends that if women are uncomfortable, then that they either leave Twitter or call the abusers out.

What I say: Yeah, men get harassed too on the internet but not nearly to the extent that women face on the internet just for being female or even , God forbid, feminist. For example, last year feminist activist Caroline Criado-Perez suffered a huge backlash on Twitter as she received 50 abusive tweets per hour for a 12-hour period. The tweets she received ranged from misogynistic insults to murder and rape threats. About 72% of those who reported being cyberbullied are female and feminine usernames on chatrooms receive about 100 explicit/threatening messages daily compared to male ones only receiving about 3.

Clearly, online harassment is often gendered, and Deterlucem is basically telling women to not complain about harassment. Sure, the internet does breed anonymity, but since when did that mean having to accept that these assholes say misogynistic crap? If this is the "real world", then we need to CHANGE that environment instead of assuming that sexist jerks will be an inherent part of it and that women have to leave if they don't like it. It's not asking for "special treatment" to expect that women be treated with respect on online spaces. If it's anyone who's not living in the real world, it's probably Deterlucem for so easily dismissing the reality of women's harassment on the internet. I mean, seriously? Why in the world should anyone have to stop visiting a website just because they feel unsafe? Would he tell that to a person of color who receives racist comments on Twitter? Would he tell him or her that s/he needs to stop expecting special treatment? I doubt it. And while he does encourage Leigh to call out her abusers, he doesn't seem to understand that what's she is doing by contributing to this Twitter Hashtag! With that tweet, she's bringing the issue to attention. Online Harassment is a serious issue that needs to be considered, and Deterlucem disregards it without a second thought.

11. Selin Kara: Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them- Margaret Atwood.
What he thinks: He doesn't care who Margaret Atwood is, and he thinks the quote is nonsense because "Not all men"! And then he mentions something about domestic violence and rape being equal on gender lines to argue that men have just as much to fear as women.

What I say: Margaret Atwood is an esteemed poet and novelist among other things, known best for her feminist classic The Handmaid's Tale. So maybe he should care. I even recommend it to Deterlucem. I think that I have already covered most of what Deterlucem says afterwards on the topic of not all men being murderers or rapists so I won't repeat it again. As to his mentioning domestic violence and rape, where is he getting that information from? Are those stories he's mentioning about women attacking and extorting men really as common as he suggests? Where are the statistics for those?

12. Soraya Chemaly: BC when my husband asks me to slow down when we walk together I realize he hasn't spend his life avoiding street harassment.
What he thinks: Deterlucem has never seen harassment and he lives on a college campus! There's even a stereotypical construction site and the workers there don't catcall women! What are those wimmin complaining about? People stare at him and he deals fine with it!

What I say: Maybe you should have stopped talking and have moved on. Are you kidding me?! You've never seen it so it must not happen? Over 65% of women in the US have experienced street harassment! Granted, not all women have gone through it but that's quite a lot. You might think that you're really observant but you're not omniscient. I promise you that a thousand things go on behind your back and right under your nose that you never notice. The fact that you have to mention that dumb construction site at your college shows how privileged you are. It shows that you really don't know anything about sexual harassment beyond what movies and TV shows have told you. And the goddamn fact that you tell Soraya that people stare at you daily and that you deal with it just fine tells me that you have NO idea what street harassment is like because you've never been confronted by it or bothered to learn about it. I, as a male, have never experienced street harassment but I don't pretend that I know more about it than the women who suffer it on a daily basis.

13. AB: Because when a girl is harassed or even groped by a stranger in public, we're told to "take it as a compliment".
What he thinks: Deterlucem really doubts this tweet and says that almost no one would say something like this. And then he says that sexual harassment happens to men too so ha!

What I say: Admittedly, I don't know much about this specific response to sexual harassment so I'm probably not qualified to give a complete counter-argument toward Deterlucem's reasoning here, but I will say this. If you go on Google and type Sexual Harassment is not a compliment, you will receive 819,000 results so it's probably not that uncommon of a response to sexual harassment. And since women are socialized from childhood to believe that their worth lies in their desirability toward men, it stands to reason that some people will dismiss sexual harassment with that in mind. Also, I'm aware that men are also victims of sexual harassment and that their cases are ignored also, but so what? What I mean to say by that is: how is that an argument against what AB has said? Doesn't that show sexual harassment affects both genders and is often not taken seriously in the first place? Clearly, the problem is that people often don't pay enough attention to sexual harassment of both genders. Deterlucem brings up a legitimate point when it comes to male victims. I'm sure feminists would love to discuss those issues too but unfortunately, it seems that MRAs only bring them up as a political weapon against feminists.

14. Amber Naslund: Because I shouldn't have to wonder how posting my experiences to #YesAllWomen will affect my job. And it will.
What he thinks:  Deterlucem thinks that maybe the reason Amber is worried about what her bosses might think is because she's a misandrist bigot who thinks all men are rapists. And he would fire her for creating a hostile work envirionment.

What I say: I sincerely hope that Deterlucem never gets into a position of hiring authority because based on what he's said here, he seems like an asshole who would fire a woman just because she's calling out sexism or challenging the way she's mistreated. I have the feeling that Deterlucem is showing more of his true side, that he equates women sharing their experience of sexism to misandry. None of the tweets that we have covered in this series have come even close misandry. If anything's wrong, it's Deterlucem's perspective.

15. Carrie K: In college, a police officer told us to scream FIRE if we were in danger of being assaulted otherwise people wouldn't get involved.
What he thinks: Deterlucem argues that the reason people wouldn't get involved is because they don't want to get hurt by the assaulter.

What I say: Deterlucem does have a point here but I would say that rapists/assailants aren't necessarily physically violent and that sometimes the possibility of someone coming to help is enough to scare that person away. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that rapists are a different category of men altogether and that they're violent monsters which isn't necessarily the case either. Also, I don't like how Deterlucem frames this as women needing to learn to not always depend on others which is rather reminiscent of victim blaming.

16. Anne T. Donnahue: Because when I call out somebody for making a sexist joke or comment online, I worry I'll burn professional bridges.
 What he thinks:  He doesn't really understand why this is a problem as he says that Anne could simply report it to a higher-up.

What I say: Well, it's not really that easy. Unfortunately, women who report sexual harassment are often labeled "troublemakers" and that stigma does limit women's professional opportunities because companies will often be reluctant to hire them. It's a sad dilemma. Damned if you don't, damned if you do.

17. Neil Gaiman: The #YesAllwomen hashtag is filled with hard, true, sad, and angry things. I can empathize & try to understand & know I never entirely will.
What he says: "*sigh* White knighting is not a good thing to do, sir"

What I say: JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! What the hell was that? Deterlucem says that he lost all respect for Neil because he's "pandering" to the feminist community. No. What Neil did was express his unity with women who suffered all forms of sexist abuses and simultaneously acknowledge that even he can't fully identify with their struggles. However, it was light years beyond what Deterlucem would have done. I cannot believe that someone who claims to be an egalitarian would have a problem with what Neil is saying. Also, if you don't know what a "white knight" is, you should know that it's a bizarre, virulent little word thrown around by MRAS to denote any man who doesn't subscribe or agree with their misogyny. It's the sexist version of "n*gger lover". Seriously, the fact that people have a problem with men supporting women against sexism makes me wish that a meteorite had exterminated all life on this godforsaken planet thousands of years ago before humanity would have taken its first doomed breath. Genuinely.


I think that I can say that I have lost most of my respect for Deterlucem. He goes on to talk about what he's "learned" from the #Yesallwomen tweets, finishing by stating he's convinced once more that feminist ideas are toxic. Hmm, let's talk about we've learned from this guy!

Deterlucem is a tool of the patriarchy. He is mansplaining personified. He is so blinded by his male privilege that it's close to impossible for him to try to comprehend women's issues. He's almost completely ignorant about the reality of rape and sexual harassment for women but he goes on anyway to assert that his clearly biased and uninformed perspective is objective reality, believing that the women who have actually experienced these issues are irrational nutcases. He claims to sympathize with women, only to later blame them for their situation a few moments later. He's also not a man of subtlety, seeing as he consistently fails to understand what these tweets are actually advocating for and keeps resorting to the exhausted argument of "not all men!" as if feminists haven't heard it countless times already. Deterlucem is perennially offended by the idea that things aren't fair for women because that means that he , as a man, has an unfair advantage and that just wouldn't do. He wants to pretend that these issues aren't about gender and deny the fact that women bear the brunt of these abuses globally. Lastly, he fancies himself a progressive while having notions about women's rights that have the potential to hurl us back to the 1950s.

From what I've seen of Deterlucem's channel, he seems concerned about social justice issues. However, his views concerning women's rights and feminism are toxic to any discussion of social justice. I think that's enough on sexist dudes for a fortnight.

Deterlucem doesn't have a clue: Part 1

Having watched Joshua Feurestein's creationist video, I decided to find rebuttal videos in order to remind myself that there are other people who don't agree with him. And I did. I found a very good video of this not-too-well-known YouTuber by the name of Deterlucem debunking all the ridiculous arguments Joshua made. It's a very informational video and I enjoyed watching it. I practically fell in love with the guy by the end of the video, and I thought I would end up subscribing to him...

...But he has other videos and through watching those, I got to find out what else he really believes in, and it's not pleasant either. You see, in the aftermath of the Isla Vista killings, the hashtag #Yesallwomen quickly caught popularity on Twitter as women responded to the misogyny* that motivated Elliot Rodger to murder 6 people in cold blood. Through this hashtag, women are sharing their stories of being victimized and mistreated by a sexist culture that values their looks and bodies over their own autonomy, the same culture that ingrained an attitude of entitlement into Elliot Rodger. Now what does that have to do with Deterlucem? Well, he just doesn't seem to like this whole idea of #yesallwomen because he believes that it's basically those dastardly feminists claiming that they speak for all women, and he made a video where he aims to debunk 13 tweets from the #Yesallwomen that he got from this article.

Here is his video. By no means do I blame you if you can't make it through.

Before I start deconstructing his arguments, I just wanted to state one thing. Am I the only one who finds the idea of debunking these tweets rather absurd? I mean, many of these tweets are derived from women's personal experiences so I didn't know at first how he would go about debunking them. Statistics? His own experience? Now, I know how, and he doesn't have very convincing arguments (except maybe to straight men).

First, there are these two claims that Deterlucem keeps repeating through the whole video, and we should get these two out of the way first. One, that he believes that the title of #Yesallwomen stems from feminists' believing that they speak for all women, and two, that the women who write these tweets are blaming all men for harassment and rape, when not all men do it. Well, the title is actually a response to men constantly crying "not all men!" when in fact, all women have suffered as a result of sexism. They're not claiming that all women agree with them. And saying that not all men are responsible doesn't really help the problem. It only minimizes the issue that so many women are constantly being harassed, assaulted, and raped in the first place. They're not blaming Deterlucem and any individual man for this. I can't believe Deterlucem doesn't undertand this.

1. Emily: Because every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body, Every. Single. One.
What he thinks: Deterlucem is just completely baffled by this tweet. He doesn't understand what kind of sexual entitlement she's talking about here. He wonders whether she's addressing men who just want a relationship to become physical or if she's implying that women never feel entitled to a man's body.

What I say: Sexual entitlement can manifest itself in a variety of ways. This can range from street harassment to employees coercing other employees into doing sexual favors, from a man you barely know thinking it's okay to touch you just because of what you're wearing to your boyfriend (or girlfriend) who constantly pushes your boundaries so they can get you to have sex with them. In all these cases, someone feels sexually entitled because they believe that their sexual gratification is more important than your right to have your body to yourself.  Of course, it's natural that someone may want a relationship to become physical but there's a distinction between what Deterlucem thinks Emily is calling out and this:

That is what sexual entitlement looks like. It's not just asking for sex. It's treating a human being as an object whose boundaries and wishes are pushed aside as mere annoyances. Yes, women can act sexually entitled, and they should also be condemned. And also, Deterlucem, no one cares if you had consensual sex. I mean, it's good that you didn't rape someone but that's the minimum amount of decency we expect from people. These women are not addressing you specifically so stop acting like it.

2. Rylah: "I have a boyfriend" is the easiest way to get a man to leave you alone. Because he respects another man more than you.
What he thinks: Deterlucem again thinks that this tweet is denouncing innocuous boy-girl interaction on the grounds that if the guy leaves the girl alone, it's simply because she's no longer available. Not because the guy respects her boyfriend more than her.

What I say: Has he really considered what Rylah is talking about here? Maybe she's not talking about being at a bar while a guy approaches her just to ask her out. Maybe she's talking about a guy who won't leave her alone even when she states that she is busy or not interested. Maybe she's talking about a guy who keeps trying to get her attention when her body language clearly says that she's not in the mood. Maybe this guy thinks that it's okay to ask her personal information when they barely met. Maybe he thinks that he's automatically worth her time of the day. Maybe she realizes that this guy doesn't really care about anything she has to say. Maybe they're not even at a bar. He might be following her around on the sidewalk while making comments like "Hey beautiful, what's your number?" Maybe at that point, she decides enough's enough and says "I have a boyfriend". At that moment, he's gone like the wind. 'Cause that's the only thing she said that ever mattered to him. Not her own humanity, but the fact that she had a boyfriend. Consider that, Deterlucem.

3.  Leah Pickett: Because every woman I know has experienced some form of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault, myself included.
What he thinks: Deterlucem agrees that this is horrible but later goes on to say that she's not speaking for all women because not all women have been raped so ha!

What I say: Again, the title comes from the fact that all women have suffered sexism, not that these women claim to speak for all women. Get it through your head! And by the way, how does Deterlucem remain unconvinced by this tweet? I would think that the fact that situations like that of Leah exist should convince everyone in the world that rape, sexual assault, and harassment is a pervasive evil in women's lives. When one in 6 American women have been raped and 31% of female workers have been sexually harassed, one seriously has to doubt how far removed they really are from this issue. True, not all women have suffered this, but how can we pretend that any woman is safe?

4. Deanna Raybourn: I've spent 19 yrs teaching my daughter how not to be raped. How long have you spent teaching your son not to rape?
What he thinks: Deterlucem feels offended. He responds "Why not teach your daughter not to rape?" and states it's offensive to ask that parents teach their male children not to rape because it assumes that by default, they'll grow to be rapists. He does understand that teaching consent to both genders is good, but is otherwise baffled by how one would teach their son not to rape.

 What I say: I actually kind of agree with Deterlucem. We should teach our daughters not to rape. We should teach the importance of consent to both our sons and daughters. We should empathize respecting your sexual partner, developing empathy for both men and women, understanding each other's boundaries, avoiding coercing others into sexual activity, and the value of an equitable relationship. And that's exactly how we would teach our sons not to rape. Also, I don't think Deanna is suggesting that men are by default rapists. The issue is that today's youth have a very distorted sense of consent and young men often fail to see how serious sexual assault is to the point that they laugh at it. And I know that "not all men!" but these young men are someone's sons also, and I doubt their parents ever talked to them about the issue of rape. Think about the teenage boys who were convicted of raping a 16-year old girl in Steubenville. They did an absolutely awful thing but I don't think they're complete monsters. Their parents never taught them about the value of meaningful consent and respecting women as human beings. Those parents never would have imagined that their sons would have done such a thing. If they had taught their boys, maybe we'd see a different future.

My point is that while we'd like to hope that our sons will grow up to be caring and considerate human beings, we cannot be sure that they won't end up violating a woman or man's integrity. Especially considering that 1 in 10 teens have coerced someone into doing some form of sexual activity. At that point, it should be clear that it's not just a few bad people who are coercing, assaulting, or raping other people, that it's a sign that something is very, very wrong with the way we view sexual activity. We need to stop devoting so much time and energy teaching women all these rape prevention lessons that don't solve the problem but help men who rape get away unpunished, and start focusing on teaching all our children to respect one another.

5. Buisiness Sam: b/c not returning someone's feelings, or as society calls it putting them in the "friend zone", should not make me feel guilty.
What he thinks: "Well yes, it bloody well should!" Deterlucem believes (quite indignantly) that "friendzoning" is when a person leads someone on who has romantic feelings for them and never acknowledges it, treating them as if they were mere friends.

What I say: Ah yes, the friend zone. I totes know about the friend zone. Yes, I agree that it's terrible when someone doesn't return your feelings and they lead you on, and that's how Deterlucem defines it . But is that what's really going on most of the time when men complain about the friend zone?I bet that for over 90% of these assholes who gripe about the "friend zoning bitch", what really happened is that the girl didn't know about his feelings in the first place, and when she found out, she just didn't feel the same way. "Friend zoning" is rarely used anymore to mean being led on and having your heart broken. Guys mainly use it nowadays to demonize women who simply don't return the feelings back. It's misogynistic as hell because it puts the woman at fault. Why not call it unrequited love? And why assume Business Sam is leading a guy on, Deterlucem? Maybe she just doesn't return his feelings and will not take being faulted of "friend zoning" just for not complying to what he wants.

6. Jennifer Laughran: In college, we'd regularly find girls who had been roofie'd and left passed out in the parking lot next to our dorm. REGULARLY.
What he thinks: Deterlucem thinks this is terrible also, but says that these women should probably learn from this experience and just follow safety rules so ha!

 What I say: Apparently, the whole point of these tweets hasn't quite made its way into Deterlucem's brain because nothing he said about this tweet was anything other the rehashing of the same old tired precautions that we expect women to follow all the time. I mean, advice like watching your drink and going with someone to a bar does work to an extent, but even so, women still do get raped by men, and an unsympathetic, accusative attitude is very often the norm when it comes to these women. Why should women have to go through life constantly fearing for their bodily and sexual integrity? Why is it that most people's automatic approach is to blame the victim as if she hasn't already blamed herself a thousand times already. Nothing Deterlucem said here did anything but to perpetuate rape culture and victim-blaming, and that is made obvious when he says that the only way these incidents will stop "is if women learn to protect themselves too". Did men not commit these rapes? Deterlucem just forgot about the instigators of these rapes in the first place.

(I don't know if you see this, but at the end of his little "rebuttal", Deterlucem turns to the camera with a brief yet smug and satisfied look on his face, as if he's done something impressive. Considering what he just said beforehand, it's quite offensive and makes me want to tear his smile off his face.)

I'll think I'll end it here for today, and continue the rest of rebuttals in another post, but we should consider what we've learned so far from this dude. While he does possess some sort of sympathy for these women who have suffered from rape, assault, and sexual harassment, it seems that the crucial thing he lacks is empathy for these women. Why else would he bother making a 25 minute video debunking these tweets? To me, it's pretty clear that this guy does not take these issues seriously and is just interested in shutting down feminism and any discussion of sexism.

To be continued here.

What am I doing?

Right now, I have this desire to revamp my blog. Only I'm not sure how to go about doing it. Maybe I should just start blogging regularly and actually get an audience? I really don't know.

First off, I've changed my blog design to what it is right now, and I like how it looks right now, so that's as far as I'm going with design for the moment. I think that once I get readers or whatever, I'll improve it.

 Second, I have these old blog posts which I wrote years ago, and I don't really like them. I don't disagree with what I wrote; it's just the writing style that I'm kind of embarrassed by now. Did I really write "BTW" in one of them? What was I thinking? I was considering editing them for grammar and clarity, but I believe I'll just leave them as they are for historical reference and such.

So to anyone who stumbles upon my blog, I start writing quality stuff after January 24, 2012. All the other posts before that are kind of embarrassing and childish. Read them at your leisure. I don't really write like that anymore

Third, I'll try to write post regularly. As long as I find some interesting stuff that I have a well-formed opinion about, I will try to write about it. This should be much easier because in the past, I've written almost exclusively about LGBT rights, and now I'm expanding my focus to feminism, politics, social justice issue, skepticism, and all these other fascinating issues that should make my blog one that can appeal to a variety of readers. As seen with my evolution post, I definitely will not just be focusing on just LGBT rights.

So hopefully, this blog becomes a much more serious pursuit of my time. Hope you'll read it!

That's not what Evolution is!

One of the things about Facebook that can easily bring me down is when my friends like or share political/controversial issue posts because then, I get to see what they really believe in, and sometimes it's quite unpleasant. That happened to me a few weeks ago when a friend shared a video of this young Earth creationist guy named Joshua Feurstein who claims he can destroy evolution in 3 minutes.

Here is the video. I don't blame you if you want to slap him.


 First, I want to confess something. I was a young Earth creationist. Yep, I used to believe that God poofed the world into existence over the course of 6 days 6,000 years ago. I believed that the Bible was practically a history book. All that was back when I was a fundamentalist Christian. So that means that had I watched this video 4 years ago, I would have believed EVERYTHING that this guy said. Now, I've gotten much better, and my mind is a lot more rational, so now when I first watched this video, I couldn't get past the first 30 seconds without wanting to scream.

Watching this video was quite sad considering how self-assured this Joshua is. He seems to truly believe that his rhetorical arguments can destroy decades of scientific research on the well-proven phenomenon that is evolution. It's really quite pathetic when you analyze his arguments for what they really are. Nothing that he says is original or thought provoking. It's basically a messy conglomeration of Kent Hovind talking points, fundamental misunderstandings of scientific terminology, and plainly ignorant assertions. But my creationist friend who shared this video thinks that Joshua is an excellent debater, and apparently so do the people who liked her post. This tells me that no matter how invariably absurd creationist arguments are, some devoted believer is going to share them like they've found undisputed proof that thousands of biologists, naturalists, and physicists don't know what they're talking about (maybe it's the other way around?). Now, I feel an obligation to debunk everything Joshua is spewing.
 
And before we begin, we must define evolution because without knowing what it is, I cannot easily defend it. I believe that the reason so many people do not believe in evolution is because they do not know what it is, and therefore, they don't understand it. Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological species over successive generations. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has modified itself from single-celled organisms billions of years ago to the mind boggling diversity of life we see today.

Joshua starts by claiming that evolution is not a science because it cannot fit within "the parameters of parentheses" (what?) of science because it's "never been observed". Well, it's not like a phenomenon has to be directly observed in order to be considered plausible. In astronomy, black holes are not directly observable because they absorb all incoming light, but astronomers have inferred that they exist due to observing the powerful beams of x-ray light and matter that they emit.

But that's rather beside the point, evolution has been observed--countless times. It may not be a video of dinosaurs evolving into birds that Joshua and other creationists seem to demand, but smaller examples of micro-evolution have been observed. For example, let's look at the peppered moths from Britain. Before the industrial revolution, most peppered moths were white with black speckles which camouflaged them well against the lichen-covered trees. But during the 19th century, the resulting pollution of the industrial revolution killed those lichens which exposed the dark tree bark underneath. Now, light peppered moths were easily predated by birds, and  dark moths, which were a genetic rarity before, could hide much better against the tree bark than the light moths. As a result, the moth population became increasingly darker as the dark moths survived and produced more offspring. By the end of the 19th century, 98% of the moth population was dark. Now what does this mean? It shows that over time, over many generations, the moth population underwent a change in the frequency of inherited characteristics (their color). In other words, evolution occurred. Admittedly, it's not the grand scale evolution that creationists often attack, but it's a good starting point from which to understand evolution. Joshua cannot deny that evolution has been observed when, as I detailed here, it has. And that's just one example. You can find countless more on any search engine.

After this, Joshua states (in a very whiny tone) that evolution is just a "theory". This was where I wanted to scream. Again and again, people like Joshua misunderstand what a theory is. In colloquial use, a theory is an unproved idea that someone has about something. In scientific use, a theory is "a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing". Theories are very useful for explaining existing phenomena, which is why we also have a theory of gravity. Do creationists argue that gravity hasn't been proven? So we call evolution a theory not because scientists haven't proven it, but rather because scientists have proven it. I seriously feel that a different word has to be used for the colloquial use of theory because it's dragging the meaning of scientific theory through the mud.

Joshua then expresses his incredulity at the idea that out of "some accidental cosmic bang" came "one cell" from which all life springs. Well, that's not actually evolution. That's a separate process called "Abiogenesis". Whereas evolution explains how life has diversified, abiogenesis explains how life began. From what I know, scientists haven't conclusively proven abiogenesis but even if it didn't happen, and god did poof life into existence, that doesn't mean evolution is false. Mentioning abiogenesis was just irrelevant, and I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, but I'm pretty sure that a single cell coming from the big bang is not an accurate summary of it.

Joshua also can't believe that over years and years, we "mysteriously" developed all our characteristics and traits because we "willed" it. Wait, what? Does he even have the slightest understanding of what evolution is? Only someone completely ignorant of evolution's mechanics would think that it works through "magic". It would take me more than a while to explain how evolution works so here you go. Also, if he doesn't believe in evolution because it's too "mysterious" and "magical", doesn't that also apply to the Genesis story in the bible? I mean, there's a damn talking snake!  What's not magical about that?

Increasingly displaying his total scientific illiteracy, Joshua cites "the law of thermodynamics" which states that "Chaos cannot create order". Whoa! Hold on! Doesn't he mean the second law of thermodynamics? That's not even what the law says! The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy (disorder) in a closed system does not decrease". Where does he get his interpretation from? I'm pretty sure that even most creationists don't paraphrase the law that badly. If you don't know why he brought this up, basically, many creationists argue that since disorder increases in a closed system, evolution cannot occur since organisms becomingly increasing complex would contradict the second law of thermodynamics. That's a poor arguments for many reasons which I won't detail here, but I will mention that entropy, which Joshua alludes to as "chaos", is very strictly defined within physics, and it's often bastardized by creationists. Here's an introduction to what it is, and from what I've heard so far, I know for a fact Joshua has no clue what it is.

Joshua then points to various physical phenomena ranging from the sun and the moon to the seasons in an attempt to prove that the world "works like a clock" *and this shows that the universe has order, and somehow this means that evolution is false because order cannot come from chaos? I'm seriously confused by what he's trying to say here. He says that these orderly phenomena could not come from an accident because it defies science. I've never heard of any scientific law or discovery that suggests that. When I first heard this argument, I dismissed it as plain stupid, but it's interesting because when I try to analyze it, it makes even less sense! I'm gonna move on because my brain feels wasted now.

Joshua pulls out a straw man argument where he compares evolution to a tornado roaming through a junkyard and assembling a shiny Lamborghini by chance. And that's not how evolution works at all. No evolutionist says that life randomly evolved to be what it is today. What happens is that environmental conditions favor some traits in a species over others, and the organisms with those traits survive and reproduce more often than those lacking the advantageous traits, so the species , over generations, gradually acquires those characteristics. That's how natural selection works which is a crucial part of evolution. Not a random process at all.

One particularly naive statement that Joshua says in the video is that the world is "perfect" and must have been designed for the existence of life.Yeah, I suppose with hurricanes, epidemics, parasites, volcanic eruptions, and sunburns, one couldn't ask for a more perfect world than that. And who says that world was created through an accident? Not scientists!

Joshua makes his last point by appealing to etymology where he breaks down the word "Universe" to uni=one and verse=statement, therefore the universe is one spoken statement. Well, that's not even correct because verse comes from the Latin "Versus" which means turned so I guess the universe is something turned to a whole. Silly.

Joshua finishes by calling people to share his video, like, comment, and the usual. He seems to have this goal of eventually getting creationism to be taught in schools. Hell, no. When it comes to science, American students are seriously lagging behind internationally, along with math and reading. Introducing creationism to schools will only make matters worse by promoting unfounded religious propaganda. The heart of science is critical thinking supported by empirical thinking, and creationism has none of that. You want to know something? My friends who liked and shared Joshua's video have only recently graduated high school. Science education has failed them. How do I know about peppered moths? Because I learned about it in high school, in my biology class. If we want students to be scientifically literate and critical thinking workers, we should do our best to educate them by teaching evolution and science, and not creationism.

My thoughts on Jimmy Hales' Coming Out Video

I was on Gawker today, and I read a story that bothers me a bit. The story is about a young gay Mormon named Jimmy Hayes. He came out to his family and friends, and not only that, he filmed their reactions and compiled into a YouTube video. In the video he calls for understanding of the plight of gay Mormons and that we keep an open ear to their experiences. In many ways, it's an inspiring video due to its humor, acceptance, and affection seen in the reactions of his family and friends. He's had to go through a lot . It makes me so happy for him, but I have mixed feelings because of the video's underlying negative implications that taint the video's message far too much for me to ignore.

Since Jimmy is still a Mormon, he's decided to remain celibate for the rest of his life. What's the problem with that? He's going to be miserable. We know that from his extended blog post about coming out. In it, he described celibacy as a "taste of hell".  Think about what he's going to have to experience: he'll go through life seeing that his friends and family are free to pursue relationships with the people they love. They'll get married and start families. He won't be able to do any of that because he believes that God says it's sinful. No matter how much of an intimate, devoted partner he may be, he won't allow himself the chance. Jimmy is only a young adult, and he knows it sucks, but he's expects to be doing that for the rest of his life! Why should he put himself through this? Clearly, Jimmy has strong religious convictions, but I would strongly advice him to consider leaving the church . What loving God would want someone to self-flagellate themselves by denying themselves romantic companionship?  It also disturbs me that he's being commended for this by others. This suffering is not necessary at all.

Since Jimmy's video is rapidly gaining views (107,000 in only three days), he's going to be something of a role model for other gay Mormons. There are some positive messages. Jimmy teaches us to be honest with ourselves and others about our sexuality. He teaches us to not be afraid and to be comfortable with the process of coming out. Yet, through his words and actions, they're taught some very contradictory and dis-empowering things over sexuality.

First, it seems that Jimmy is teaching gay Mormons to accept their role in the church. Despite all his effort and pleas for people to understand his plight, he'll still be in the same position he was in the Mormon church. He'll be expected to remain celibate and be content with it. His willingness to accept this teaches gay Mormons that the best they can expect after coming out is simple acknowledgment of their sexuality. They'll be expected to suffer the same misery that Jimmy is being condemned to. Worse, Jimmy minimizes his celibacy by simply stating that it "sucks" and still smiling , as if it's like wearing a retainer. Ultimately, Jimmy's message has a defeatist side to it. This is especially visible when he states that "the church's doctrine isn't going to change." Even though he immediately stated after that the church's members are becoming more accepting, he didn't offer any hope that the church will finally update its policy and allow gay members to live their lives as freely as their straight counterparts.

I don't want to say that Jimmy is a victim because the effort he's made to try to get people to become more accepting and understanding of gay people is commendable. Yet, his message towards gay Mormons is far too reflective of the Church's doctrine towards gay members.It almost seems like propaganda. In his attempt to reconcile his sexuality and religion, Jimmy has started using the same rhetoric that the Mormon church uses. For example, The church created a website in 2012 titled mormonsandgays.com . This site claims to approach gay Mormons with "love and understanding yet they state in the same page that "Members of the Church who have same-sex attractions, but don’t act on them, can continue to enjoy full fellowship in the church, " That's a terrible message, and it's the message that Jimmy has embraced and is teaching as an example. The Mormon church can put up a facade of love and understanding yet enslave gay people by encouraging them to live lonely celibate lives. They'll point to Jimmy's story as a "success" story and his life as the model life. That's cruel and deceptive. If they truly understood the experiences of gay people, they would not be against gay relationships anymore.

Jimmy states that he's received love and empathy yet if any one has given him this, they would've explained to him that there's nothing wrong with the life he truly wants. No loving person would encourage him to be so lonely. He's only half-way out of the closet. To be completely out means to live out your life freely and with out shame and guilt, to not bow down to what others want from you. Jimmy deserves all of this, and he's not getting it. In many ways, it's a sad story. And the church will want to hide that.

What people get wrong about Chick fil-A

Recently, a national controversy has erupted over gay rights and Chick fil-A. After the fast-food restaurant's president Dan T. Cathy stated that Chick fil-A supports "the biblical definition of the family unit", several gay rights organizations expressed their disfavor with this statement since it excludes gay couples and families. The Jim Henson company announced that it was ending its partnership with Chick fil-A and will now be redirecting it's donations to the gay rights group GLAAD. People have also called for a boycott of the restaurant.

                    Unfortunately, a large amount of confusion has arisen over this controversy. For example, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stated that the boycott has a "chilling effect on our first amendment rights ." This is a moronic statement since holding a boycott is actually an exercise of our 1st Amendment rights and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If she actually cared about freedom of speech, she would've been against a Chicago politician's intent to ban Chick fil-A from opening a second store there. Also, relating to that last statement, The Alderman of the city of Chicago & the mayor of Boston. have openly stated their disappointment following Cathy's statements. They were strongly criticized by people on both sides of the political spectrum for showing an intent to ban the restaurant. These threats later turned out to be empty since such a pursuit would be thrown out quickly for violating the 1st amendment.

What bothers me is how these people have now shifted the focus of the Chick fil-A controversy to the issue of Freedom of Speech and it has gained Chick fil-A much sympathy. Most of the media hasn't gone back to the original issue of corporate ethos.And now there's a misconception that Chick fil-A is just being attacked for supporting traditional marriage.. It's most likely why Mike Huckabee's "Chick fil-A appreciation day" resulted in record crowds while the counter-protest National Same-sex Kiss day had lackluster attendance. The people who went to Chick fil-A may have thought they were just "affirming a business that operates on Christian values", but it was more than that. Not supporting gay marriage is one thing, but the problem isn't what Chick fil-A says, it's what it does.

                      It never was a secret that Chick fil-A is a Christian organization. It's founder Truett Cathy, was also founder of the WinShape Foundation which provides several social service programs such as scholarships and summer camps. It's also strongly influenced by Christianity and the foundation is heavily involved with anti-gay organizations. In fact, it has donated almost $2 million dollars to these groups and it's almost entirely funded by the profits Chick fil-A makes. Let's go over some of the groups they've funded.

                         $480,000 was given to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes which recruits people with a love of both sports & religion for it's Ministry Leader program. It then requires applicants to agree with the statement that God disapproves of all sexual impurity including homosexuality.  Exodus International and the Family Research council each received $1,000. Exodus advocates "ex-gay therapy" and is famous for it's pseudo-therapeutic techniques of shame and denial. It's president has even criticised the organisation's promises of change , but continued to state that "The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality. It’s holiness." The Family Research Council is listed as a hate group by The Southern Poverty Law Centre for promoting unfounded claims that gay men molest children at higher rates than straight men and the myth that homosexuality is a choice. In 2009, WinShape donated $12,500 to Focus on the Family which opposes anti-bullying initiatives and even founded a website called "True Tolerance" to oppose what they call "homosexual advocacy".

                          While one may argue that these donations are small amounts of money compared to the charitable service the foundation provides to people, it's important to know that it doesn't excuse what they've done and the problem is that these organizations are receiving money from them at all. Also, the National Christian Foundation receives over $200,000  from WinShape and donates this money to other anti-gay groups including Focus on the Family & the Family Research Council. WinShape is indirectly donating them more money. And lastly the Pennsylvania Chick fil-A branch once co-sponsored with the Pennsylvania Family institute an event by Family Life called "the Art of Marriage". This was later criticized since the PFI is anti-gay and once opposed an anti-discrimination bill protecting gay people.

                           As you can see, Chick fil-A has a history of being involved with groups that are opposed to civil rights and spread lies about gay people. I believe many of the ordinary people who eat at Chick fil-A would be repulsed by what these groups do, even if they oppose gay marriage. Only they're probably not aware of this and the conservative commentators who defend this place are probably not aware either or they're being dishonest about this issue. Now some you may say that you just want to eat chicken without having to take sides, but the reality is when you spend your money at Chick fil-A, it can easily end in the hands of those groups. If you care about equal rights for gay people, make a statement by not eating there again or if you don't eat there anyway, spread it around to those who do. It's more than just chicken.

Eagerly Waiting for Imbolc

Ok, We've had a mild winter this year. I mean it was 66 degrees once in my Midwest home! But then Winter came back & I'm positive you want it away again. That's why you should embrace Imbolc!

Imbolc is a holiday that often Neo-Pagans celebrate. Neo-Pagans are followers who've reconstructed ancient & forgotten beliefs such as Celtic, Norse, Egyptian etc. The most popular one is Wicca. It is a Nature-based religion which is Duotheistic and it involves ritual magic. Most interesting to me are it's "Sabbats". These festivals celebrate seasonal changes Year Round. They are often mapped out in Wheels.

As you can see, Imbolc is on February 2 but what is Imbolc about exactly? Where did it come from? Many celebrations exist.  There was the Roman Lupercalia which celebrated the legendary twins Romulus and Remus. Celebrated on Imbolc is of Course Candlemas.  Imbolc, however is based off the Irish Festival. It honors the Goddess Brighid who is the keeper of the flame , fertility, & healing.

Basically, the Point of Imbolc is to usher in spring & drive winter out. Since Brighid is a goddess of fire, it's what Imbolc is about. The world awakens from a dark slumber & green plants arise to be new life. The fire represents the cleansing of the human soul & new beginnings.

What can you do to celebrate Imbolc?
1. Light candles in your home to welcome the lengthening days again.
2. Reflect on winter's end on this great guided mediation script.
3. Brighid is associated with fertility & you can make a corn doll! (Music player at bottom of page)
4. Hold an Imbolc house cleansing ceremony. It's inspiring & social!
5. You could walk around outside & see the signs of spring stirring until it has to wake up again.
6. Make an Brighids cross
7. Open the doors & windows for a few minutes. Let the good energy come in & the bad one go out (not vice versa!)

Have a wonderful spring & year!