How psychic believers made me more of a skeptic

Guys, as I have mentioned before, I'm like, obsessed with paranormal TV shows: investigation-y ones, ones with cheesy reenactments, personal anecdotes, scientific or "scientific" analysis of the phenomena, whatever. Obviously, my default television network is Investigation Discovery because, duh murder shows, but if there's a ghost hunt or first-person account of a haunting or even a paranormal debunking show on that I somehow haven't seen yet, I'm watching it. I've also written numerous academic papers on paranormal investigation TV (and even got one accepted to an academic journal for publication mwahmwahmwah) because I think the genre's popularity can tell us some really interesting things about our culture.* Do I believe in ghosts? Maybe? I've stated before that I am like Mulder's poster when it comes to the paranormal:

But I kind of gave up on believing things when I stopped being Mormon (eight years ago this fall!). I mean, I grew up being taught to believe in some weird shit. For a long time after leaving the church, I thought of myself as an "apathetic agnostic"; I didn't know if I believed in a god, and I didn't really care. I lean more toward atheist now, and my inability to believe in a deity also makes me awfully skeptical about stuff like souls and an afterlife. Which makes the whole "ghost" thing confusing. But lest this turn entirely into a multi-thousand word post about which scientific theories of alternate realities/universes/energies or whatever I think might be valid, let's just leave it at: I have always been fascinated by and drawn to paranormal stuff. I like the idea of it, I think people have authentically unexplainable experiences, but I have no firsthand experience and my liberal arts-addled/critical thinking brain is like, "It's probably bullshit. It's cool and creepy, but probably mostly bullshit."

The other important thing to know about me is that I am very uncomfortable with genuine displays of emotion. Sincerity is like my Kryptonite. I cannot handle earnest people and all their feelings and enthusiasm and faith and I'm just feeling icky thinking about it. I only hug when I'm drunk! I use sarcasm as a shield! Et cetera! I don't even know how I handled all those years of testimony meeting.** Which is not to say I've never been caught up in "the Spirit" or whatever. That's what Girls' Camp and EFY were for. I've moved pretty far past that whole Mormon teenager "I have to believe" mindset, so today even things like my local Occupy meetings drain me because of the all the goddamn belief in change and earnest effort. I was just so goddamn embarrassed for everyone. I hate the Q&A sections of academic lectures. You just do not know what people will say! It is so awkward. I hate it. True believers are huge turn-off for me. But I went to see psychic/medium/badass Chip Coffey last night anyway.

I can't say that the actual presentation/show was worth the $50 I spent to sit in the very back of the general admission section, but Chip was, ultimately, very charming. He's an adorable southern-ish gay man who likes to swear and give people tough love. How can you not be into that? I also tend to believe that Chip Coffey is sincere in his belief that he can speak to the dead and has general psychic abilities. I don't believe the man is a charlatan (though I do kind of just like using the word "charlatan"), and I've seen him come up with some pretty specific, creepy shit that he really has no way of knowing on his various TV appearances and even in a few of the short readings he did last night. I can't explain those. But most of what he does is read people. OBVS. Psychics are like Sherlock Holmes, but more tactful.

The crowd who showed up at Coffey Talk with Chip Coffey was largely made up of white ladies, and skewed toward middle age, I would estimate. And some of them had their very own PSYCHIC KIDS with them! Which is one of Chip's things, obvs, but when the woman next to me pressed him during Q&A to write, like, an instructional manual about children's psychic development he was like, "I actually do very little work with children." In part because it is kind of controversial, which he admits. And she was filled with disappointment, but luckily she could chat with the ladies in front of us about their psychic kids together during the break, at which time I escaped to the bar. Then at the bar, while slurping down my raspberry vodka and Sprite (I had less than 15 minutes), a middle-aged white lady with a very short, very unfortunate haircut and a commemorative satin jacket from Alcatraz ("The Rock") was telling some other lady about her life-changing experience with cars from the past and reliving her childhood to find peace with a dead loved one or something and I was texting my friends like, "OMG these people" because I am terrible.

There were lot of people walking around with VIP lanyards (pay extra to actually meet Chip) and Super-VIP lanyards (pay even more extra to meet Chip and do a paranormal investigation of the Wabasha Street Caves with him) who read pretty "ghost hunter-y" to me (Think: Paranormal Challenge contestants). Most people who were picked out of the many volunteers during the second portion of the show to have readings done either wanted to contact a dead friend or relative or to ask about, like, health problems they have or something. Chip was generally charming, he handles people well and didn't let anybody yammer on and on awkwardly. But of course his readings for people were incredibly general, and even some specifics seemed pretty easy to guess. He did (apparently accurately) mention boats in relation to two of the men he "read," but since this is Minnesota and practically everybody's got a cabin on a lake or at least a friend who has one, I'm not sure that's really narrowing it down much. As I watched the sad, mourning people gain comfort from Chip telling them their loved one says they love them and that they are okay, I was in some ways disappointed. Nothing amazing happened. Those readings could have been for anybody. I would still be open to getting a personal reading done some day (when I've got money to burn), just to see if they said anything actually applicable, but I feel as though it would be a lot like when I got my patriarchal blessing at seventeen and was like "Vague much?"

Though pretty decent entertainment, watching all those believers watch Chip do what he does, I just felt kind of sorry for everybody. Their eagerness to believe just reminded me of my church days. Of teenagers really trying to believe, to claim that the "knew" the Church was true, to "feel the Spirit" and cry and hug each other because of Jesus*** (or just sleep deprivation/peer pressure, but whatever). Of little children in testimony meeting repeating the words of truth and belief into the microphone that their parents whispered into their ears. And because I was there alone, I had nobody to snark to (a great tragedy) or to express my skepticism about certain claims that Chip or his fans were making. It was that community of believers that just kind of creeped me out a little bit. I would read the fuck out of an ethnography about psychic believers, but I would never, ever want to conduct one. I didn't even raise my hand to volunteer for a reading because a) What the hell would I ask? "Can you tell me some vague things about my future career as Amy Poehler?" "Please contact my dead grandparents, but not really because even in life it was awkward to talk to them on the phone, as much as I loved them, and what if this is real and they tell me I've ruined my life by not being Mormon anymore?" Also, b) I probably wouldn't have gotten picked anyway. I bet Chip would have been able to smell the cynicism on me. Though I did wear a semi-sparkly fashion scarf in scarf solidarity.

Anyhow, we all know I have a cold, blackened heart that cannot be touched by the power of love, hope, miracles, or the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace. This is not news. But goddamn if all that sincerity made me turn my skepticism up another couple of notches. Chip is great. Probably not actually speaking to spirits, though. Everybody else at the show last night should maybe think about getting a new hobby.


*Or at least that is maybe what I will write my dissertation about, but that is another essay in itself probably.
**Yes I do: snark. And avoidance. Just like when awkward situations happen on TV, I hide my face and/or do something else or talk over it for a minute because it is SO PAINFUL.
***Not this Jesus. I hug Him all the time, but only when we are both super-drunk. And then we insult each other affectionately and sing karaoke together. It is possible that my friend Brock is the Sexy Gay Jesus.

A Thing I Did Before: The Creation Museum

Over spring break last month, the Beard and I packed up for an exotic vacation to northern Kentucky and the Cincinnati area. We spent way too much money on admission and souvenirs from the Creation Museum. It was full of dinosaurs and pseudo-pscience and Christians.

This is a stegosaurus sign!

These awkwardly-dressed tween mannequins and I are going to learn so much about Creation!

Another dinosaur outside.

This display assures us that this fossil could NOT be millions of years old because the Bible.

RELATIVISM, amirite?

I was not supposed to get on this triceratops because I am not a child, but some Christian adults encouraged me to do it anyway.

There was a petting zoo there. OBVS.

I made Isaac pretend to be into this Adam and Eve sexy water scene.

Adorable mammoth we brought home with us.

We learned a lot of things at this museum. Mostly that all scientific evidence should either be fit into the Biblical narrative (and a 6000 year-old earth timeline) or disregarded. Also, dragons were real and were just dinosaurs that still lived into the middle ages. OBVS.

UPDATE: This amazing real-life married couple really explains all you need to know about dinosaurs and Noah's Ark and being adorable and hilarious through song:

Rebel Yelling: Volume VI- Matthew Jarzen Column from the Past!

Last fall, when I was in the heat of the Rebel Yelling original quintology, I was contacted by actual real-life acquaintances of our favorite conservative undergraduate opinionator Matthew Jarzen. The feedback was uniformly positive. This is because the videos are awesome. Anyway, before Christmas some time we filmed this video and I just very recently remembered/got around to editing it, so here goes. BTW: remember "Climategate?"



Original article at the UNLV Rebel Yell: Climategate: The story of the century!

Yes, that is a weird furry Anne Geddes baby doll. It was part of a costume, okay?

I discuss the motherfucking issues, motherfuckers

Performing fellatio on this firearm will totally cancel out the need for VAWA, right?


It's time for another edition of "Lauren links and rambles about gender and whatnot." Your favorite! (!!) ! So I'm a-gonna get to it:

GENDER & VIOLENCE*

There are a couple of bright pink signs posted on a fence next to a busy thoroughfare in my neck of the woods that say something to the effect of: "LADIES- STOP BEING VICTIMS. GET A HANDGUN." And it lists a phone number, supposedly for some sort of arms supplier. Those signs piss me the fuck off. Something I should really make an effort to do before I move away is follow through with my plan to make another, bigger sign to cover one of the pink ones that says: "MEN- STOP BEING PERPETRATORS. END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN." Fucking fuck, people. Seriously. The signs came to mind as I read a few posts this week, emphasizing two big issues having to do with feminism, gender, and violence:

1. The idea that a gun, or any sort of self-defense method is a "good enough" solution--or any solution at all, really--to the real-life epidemic of violence against women.

2. Generalized ignorance about the role gender training plays in the perpetuation of violence done by men.

So, discussion with link-age:

1. HAVING A GUN IN HER COLD, DEAD HANDS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT WHOLE COLD AND DEAD PART: Or, why more guns are a terrible idea

A douchebag "feminist" columnist that I am too lazy to link to suggested, as many other well-meaning douchebags have in the past, that maybe feminists should be all pro-gun and shit so we can shoot men before they get a chance to rape us. Right. Okay, well let's just disregard the fact that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. I mean, I probably wouldn't carry my handgun to hang out with friends or friends of friends that I knew and trusted as much as anybody. This is not even to mention the issue of domestic violence: you have to get to a pretty serious breaking point as a victim to be able to shoot your abuser, and most abuse victims wouldn't be able to get away with obtaining a gun and being able to use it without the abuser finding out first and punishing them. And doesn't it seem like common sense, that the more guns there are out there, the more people will get hurt by them? I don't even want to imagine what a bunch of cranky shoppers in line at the grocery store might turn into if one or more of them revealed that they were carrying a gun. I mean, I've worked in a grocery store, and PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES. FOR NO REASON. Easy access to deadly weapons would only exacerbate the problem. And as far as gender-based violence goes, Amanda said it well (as usual):

Instead of laying a challenge to the dominant worldview that accepts male violence, we try to grant women access to the same male violence by obvious phallic symbols. But having a violent phallus of your very own doesn’t do much, practically speaking, against the violence perpetrated by the be-phallused against the un-phallused.

Lining us all up like Civil War soldiers to shoot at each other doesn't really solve the problem. We need to stop focusing on what the victims are (or should or could be) doing, and start looking at who's victimizing them, why they're doing it, and why the hell we put up with it.

This leads me to....

2. I'M JUST SAYING THAT MAYBE IT MIGHT POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA TO PERHAPS EXAMINE THE MESSAGES SENT TO MEN AND BOYS ABOUT VIOLENCE: Or, why expecting the worst often just gets you the worst

You know how increasingly, these news stories pop up about how "girls are becoming more violent" or whatever? I'm not saying that's not a problem, because violence = never cool. HOWEVER: how often do you see your local Fox affiliate investigate "boys continue to be encouraged to treat others cruelly in order to maintain some bullshit definition of masculinity"? Oh, more attention is being paid to bullying in general (and this is a boon to everyone), but what I think gets lost in the mainstream discussion is this examination of gender. It's the fucking Manly Olympics again that is fucking everyone over. Are men REALLY naturally more violent than women? Does testosterone ACTUALLY cause them to act irrationally, keep them from practicing self-control, and force them to harm others? Well, due to the fact that I know plenty of non-violent men, I'm going to have to go ahead and call shenanigans on that nonsense. It's just more evo-psych bullshit that uses biology to try and justify shitty social norms as "natural" and "determined by evolution." STFU. Seriously.

Ashley at Feministe really crystallized the argument:

Anyway, believers in testosterone zombies aside, anyone paying attention can tell you that men are more likely to be violent largely because their violence is condoned and even encouraged as a normal aspect of male identity. The fact that, as the headlines above show, perpetrators of violent crime are assumed to be male unless stated otherwise shows just how normalized male violence is...

...I’m often amazed at how invisible we make the identity of dominant groups in analyzing the behavior of their members, as opposed to the way we imagine that every member of a marginalized group is representative of the entire population of that group.

It's ridiculous how the patriarchy uses negative stereotypes about men (that they're violent, can't control their anger or lust, are incompetent at basic household tasks and/or with children, etc.) to absolve themselves of responsibility. Women have to do all the shitty household work because BOYS DON'T KNOW HOW. Women have to avoid being raped because PENISES ARE JUST TOO HARD TO CONTROL. If I were a man, I'd be pissed as hell that not only are these stereotypes accepted as truth by large swaths of society, but that all men are required to fulfill them. A certain amount of assholery is expected of men themselves in order for the proper masculinity quotas to be filled. This is not cool. It hurts people of all genders. Let's make a new masculinity, okay? In fact, let's make lots of masculinities and femininities and hold hands and sing the gender-neutral version of "Kumbayah." Because as cheesy as that sounds, it's sure as hell an improvement over the current state of affairs.


*I put the headline in pink so you would know that it's about "girl stuff."

Quote o' the Day: Denying it doesn't make it go away, friends

"Mother fuck. One of my biggest pet peeves, in a day and age where there are a lot of things that get my blood boiling, are these hick mother fuckers who simply can’t deal with the fact that evolution happened." -Seth at QuizLaw on Bobby "McCain's VP/Exorcist Extraordinaire" Jindal signing into law some bullshit that requires teachers in Louisiana to cover "'Intelligent' Design." As per usual, PZ Myers has more at Pharyngula.

But it's sure as hell a lot more convenient than having to do it by hand

So... are they just going to protest "science," or are they going to find the over 10 million American women who use hormonal birth control and picket their medicine cabinets? Just wondering. I might want to hide my delicious baby casseroles and pies before they come over, is all.


Via Pandagon.