Tag Archives: Ms. Willemse

We Love Cults.

Posted on by

Over the past little while, we have been looking at different events in history. We started by looking at turning points, and how the world was experiencing difficult times, especially in the 60s and 70s. Events like Vietnam, Watergate, and the Munich Olympics, changed a lot of opinions about the world, and the state of things. From discussions we had around these events, we were able to look at people’s responses to these tumultuous times. Specifically, we moved to looking at New Religious Movements, and their boom during these years.

I should take a little bit of a pause here to explain what I mean by New Religious Movement. It is a long term, and so I will now refer to it as NRM. An NRM is basically what scholars call cults. Cults is a very loaded word, because cults became a word to describe any religious group you didn’t like. NRMs are often offshoots of mainstream religions, or groups who have non-mainstream beliefs. They often have very fervent devotion, and a charismatic leader. There are a lot of other requirements for these groups, but I think it would make more sense to explain through the lens of a specific NRM.

That NRM would be the Children of God (COG), or The Family International. They have had many names over the years, after bad press and reforms, but COG is their most well-known name. This group was started by David Berg, a preacher in California. While there, he recruited hippies in the area to form COG, which was based on Christianity, and other prophesies of David Berg. COG was an end-time NRM, and 1993 was the year when the world would end and Jesus would return.

There are a few key characteristics that most NRM groups have, and to go further into why COG fits the definition, I’ll take you through each one.

Charismatic Leader

David Berg was this charismatic leader for COG. He formed COG as a sect of christianity, so it was easier for him to gain fervent believers. He referred to himself as Moses David, and was supposed to be God’s end-time messenger. One aspect of Berg that made him interesting to me was how isolated he was from his followers. Unlike some NRM leaders, he was a recluse. He didn’t go visit with his members and interact with them with a physical presence. Few of his followers ever actually met him.

Instead, they had two way communication through the Mo Letters on Berg’s side, and camcorder video on the follower’s side. The Mo Letters created the rules for the COG, and were the published form of Berg’s prophesies. The followers filmed the goings-on of the group to send to Berg. Everything from parties, dinners, and sex tapes. It was a really fun time.

Transcendent Belief System

As I mentioned before, COG was an offshoot of Christianity, so it was easier for members to join. The concept of a missionary church, which was not a new idea, appealed to a lot of people. They wanted to spread the message of God, and this seemed like the best way to do it. The main goal of COG was to conquer the world for Jesus, so when the end came, they would be saved. Members of the cult saw this as the best form of Christianity, and were very enthusiastic about their mission.

Systems of Control

As a missionary organization, isolation was a big part of their group. Members lived communally, in small houses where leaders of the movement were the heads of households. People were encouraged to get rid of all their worldly possessions, give the money to the group, and devote their lives to conquering the world for Jesus. There were very strong groups in Costa Rica, where in one small house they had over 30 people.

You were cut of physically from your past, but you were also isolated within your community. Being a missionary, even if 50% of the people talk to you, is isolating. It creates the divide between us and them, COG being the ones who are saved and the ones you can’t reach were under the control of the devil.

Even if you did want to leave COG, it seemed as though there was nothing left for you in the outside world. Children and teens didn’t go to school; instead, they spent their days as missionaries as well, going door to door and asking people to pray with them. Long time members had given up their careers, houses, and money, so they felt like there was nothing to go back to. There was also the idea of divine punishment, that if you left something terrible would happen to you because you were abandoning God’s goodwill.

Systems of Influence

The biggest form of influence was the Mo Letters, which controlled every aspect of the groups lives. They were comics, religious in nature, and people read them all. These letters controlled everyday life for the group, down to how much tea they could drink. Not following the rules laid down by the group lead to severe repercussions. There was no questioning leadership. Your time was managed, you went to all the group activities, and if you asked questions you were severely rebuked. There was a lot of fear. All the rules were straight from the top.

After years of following Berg’s writings, no one questioned when they became more intense. Berg had different ideas about religion and sex. He promoted sexual sharing, where members were allowed to have sex with anyone else in the group. People were already following what was in the Mo Letters, so they felt it was their duty to follow through with these ideas. There was no concept of consent. If you said no to someone, you were seen as though you didn’t belong. Children knew about this, as well, and it created a bit of strife in families.

Berg also came to the conclusion that witnessing wouldn’t be enough to save everyone. He decided that he would deploy flirty fishing, where women would perform sexual favours and whatever else to get more people into COG and win them for Christ. Some of the houses basically became brothels. You didn’t complain, because you were doing what you thought was God’s Will.

Why People Joined

The 1960s and 70s were a very tumultuous time in the United States. The peace-loving hippies were looking for a cause, and David Berg gave them just that. It wasn’t unrealistic for a lot of people to believe that the end of the world was coming so soon. It seemed like a long time away from them, and they just wanted to help save as many people as possible. This group gave people an easy answer on how to save humanity, which was exactly what they were looking for. And again, it was a christian group. Having branched off of a established religion, it was a lot easier to convince other christians to join. There was a direct way to get more people to support their cause, so why not join?

COG, now known as The Family International, still exists today. They are no longer under the leadership of David Berg, as he died, but his wife Maria took over. They spread Jesus’s message of love all over the world, and are the most successful NRM to emerge from the 60s era of counterculture.

Book Reviews but make them School Related

Posted on by

Quick spoiler warning. I’m going to be going into detail about the Chaos Walking series, with spoilers. So, if you haven’t read the books, and intend to, maybe don’t read this.

Over the, well the weekend, I read the entire Chaos Walking trilogy. Amazing series, BTW. Definitely would recommend. It is also very much intertwined in what we are learning right now, so thats super fun.

The premise of the second and third novels are primarily what I am going to focus on, but I’ll touch on the first book as well. These two are the ones that directly deal with the idea of terrorism, and a sort of civil war in this world. There are a lot of parallels between the terrorism we’ve been learning about, and they ways that the characters in the books go about terrorism, which is pretty cool.

I am not sure if you could call what happened in the first book terrorism. They definitely use fear, and have a political goal, and since there is no media, they use word of mouth. I am still hesitant to call it terrorism. I am, of course, referencing the people of Prentisstown, and the ‘army’ they have. In actuality, they are only a few hundred men, but the threat of violence is enough for the people of New Haven to give up their power, as well as cause most of the rest of the population of their planet to flee their homes to New Haven, which was obviously not a great idea. Their ‘army’ did kill people, but not exactly terrorism. I still think it’s important to mention, because it sets up the rest of the story.

The second book is really where we get into the idea of terrorism, and people are directly called terrorists. As the old mayor takes control of New Haven, there are obviously people who don’t support them. Specifically, a lot of the women do not support many of his actions. There is more in the actual book that explains this deeper, so go read that. Anyways, this group of women slowly leave the town, and set up camp. This would be fine if it weren’t for the two people in charge.

On one hand, we have the Mayor. He has like, mind powers, and lots of weapons in the town. He also was part of the group that killed all the women from their old town, which makes him pretty scary. Him and his army occupy the town.

On the other hand, we have Mistress Coyle. She was part of a fighting faction in their old war, and has a lot of power and influence. She is also a healer, but not a doctor. There is a lot of sexism and a strong gender divide in this book, which is important. Sucky, but important. She wants to liberate the town from the Mayor, and will do anything to reach her goals. Her group is called the Answer.

Mistress Coyle, and the Answer, are who we’d call the terrorists in this scenario. The word terrorist is specifically used to describe their group, so I don’t feel bad about using it. The Answer is kinda seen as the good guys, but it is not as black and white as that. The book does a really good job of showing that neither side are good guys, and they both do really bad stuff.

The Answer’s main terrorist thing is their bombings. They have suicide bombers, as well as planted bombs in civilian-occupied areas. They bomb storefronts, symbols, and all the in-between. The Mayor uses that to demonize them, and to gain more support for going after them.

In the last book, it gets a bot more complicated. Theres a whole other army of aliens, who don’t like humans, and they have battles and stuff. It’s not super important. What I think is important is how it ends for both of the leaders.

They both die.

Of their own terms.

They believe in their goals so much that they are willing to die for their cause. The Mayor less so, but still.

I think these books are a really good example of terrorism, and how there are no heroes when you’re killing civilians.

 

People want to believe the best in elected officials

Posted on by

This post is the same vibe as my last two posts. If you’re interested in more info about the project as a whole, check them out.

We’ve moved into the sphere of music, and how looking at historical events through the lease of music can shed light on a topic. Part of that was to analyze a song, of our choice, and see how that fits in. The idea I found for this particular song fits with other things as well, but for now we’ll focus on the song.

People Want to Believe the Best in Elected Officials

Today, we may not have this exact worldview. Through abuses of power, and outright lies, we have kind of lost that. But in the 1960’s, this was not the case, especially in America. When your president tells you that you have to do your part, you believe him. That’s exactly what Charlie Boy by The Lumineers is saying.

And Kennedy made him believe
We could do much more

Play the bugle, play the taps
Make your mothers proud
Raise your rifles to the sky, boys
Fire that volley loud

This is referencing the Vietnam War, and how so many young men went to fight, because they believed it was the best thing they could do for their country. They thought that the war was important, because their president, the person they trusted to run their country, told them to. Of course, thats not how we view the Vietnam war today, nor how the song continues.

News was bad on Upland Ave
Metuchen mourn our loss
Sons rebelled, while fathers yelled
And mothers clutched the cross

So many of the young people who went into this unwinnable war never made it back home. So many people want to think that people in power always do what’s right, but thats impossible. We can’t think of political powers as heroes, because the mistakes that they can make can be devastating.

History Happens on the Subatomic Level

Posted on by

Y’all. We are so close.

Like I’ve mentioned in my last blog post (at least I think it did), our last little bit of learning before we take-off into the world is structured a little differently. We have topics that we’re looking at, and ideas that stem from them. That was a really bad explanation, but we’re going with it.

This post is about an idea that I had a little while ago, and my brain continues to make connections as we continue learning. I have a few examples, somewhat odd, but its what I’ve got.

History Happens on the Subatomic Level

This might not make a lot of sense, but I’ll break it down for you. The thing about historically significant events is that a lot of people don’t know how significant they are until after the fact. People are just living their lives, and they happen to be where all these crazy events happen.

First example, the umbrella man. If you are at all versed in conspiracy, which I’ll come back to later, the umbrella man is a prime example of this. Basically, when JFK was shot in Dallas, Tx, there was a man on the grassy knoll who was holding an umbrella. This was seen as odd, because it was actually a nice day outside. People latched onto this oddity, and created a myth around this man, and his involvement in the assassination. In reality, he was just a man who was there protesting something that JFK’s father had done. He was one tiny part of what happened that day, and he couldn’t have known what would spring from his innocent action.

The other example is a wee bit less innocent, but important nonetheless. More important, one might say. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the following ‘quarantine’, submarines were deployed as a precaution by the cubans, supplied of course by the USSR. These submarines had nuclear warheads, and were ready to strike should the US make a move. One October day, a US Navy ship tried to contact one of these subs to get it to come up by dropping a short ranged grenade on them, as they were too deep to contact any other way. Thinking that this meant that they were at war, the crew aboard the submarine readied to fire their nukes. One captain refused to fire the nukes. This meant that they were not unanimous, and could not fire. This one decision may have stopped WW3.

No one really knows what will come from their actions. They might have ideas, but every decision comes with a consequence, and even small ones can have a large impact on the future. Some of these small decisions lead to conspiracy theories, like that kermit the frog was involved in 9/11. Others stop all out war. It’s a fun time being alive.

What makes a legend?

Posted on by

In honour of Bonnie and Clyde’s murder anniversary, which is in two weeks, I thought I would elaborate on an idea I had while researching them! 

Bonnie and Clyde were Glamourized by the Media

First, what you have to understand is the era in which they were outlaws. This was the 1930’s in America, also known as the Great Depression. People were not doing great. They were tired of hearing about how bad life was, and how much worse it was going to get. 

Enter Bonnie and Clyde, a young couple who took life into their own hands when they started robbing banks and killing people. Side note: it was only Clyde who was charged with the murder of 13 people, but you can’t tell me Bonnie didn’t kill anyone. Anyways. 

Their exploits were published all over the country. Conveniently, in a car that they abandoned, pictures of the daring couple were left behind. Next thing you knew, their faces were on every newspaper across the country. 

People were obsessed. They likened the young duo to Hollywood stars, creating a legend out of some criminals. Everyone wanted to hear about them, rather than how bad the world was doing. If the country hadn’t been suffering like they were, who knows what would have happened to Bonnie and Clyde? Maybe they wouldn’t have had to turn to crime?

Anyways, people were obsessed. These were the great heroes, bringing back the ways of the old west. However, nothing lasts forever. 

In May of 1934, the FBI were brought in because the pair had stolen a car. Yup. Not because they had killed 13 people and had committed several kidnappings and robberies. They stole a car and so they FBI had jurisdiction. 

This was the beginning of the end for ol’ Bonnie and Clyde. They were ambushed fleeing a safe house in Louisiana, and shot dead in their car. 

The public were shocked. Not because of their deaths, no. that was pretty inevitable. They were shocked at how ordinary they pair were. They were not the young starlets the media made them out to be. They had limps, scars from old bullet wounds, and Clyde even had missing toes. 

The media took this ragtag couple, and made them into legends. They altered public perception, and in doing so, immortalized them. But at what cost to them, and the public?

Men Cast a Real Big Shadow

Posted on by

Five weeks is a very short amount of time. It is also an eternity. Welcome to the post on why men suck.

For the past five weeks, we have been studying one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, The Taming of the Shrew (TOTS). We have been looking at it through the lens of women, feminism in a sense. We read the play, and studied the feminist movement throughout the ages.

Throughout the project, we were also completing weekly reflection posts on what we were learning. These posts were fun to do, because we got chances to reflect on what we were learning. These posts, including Sluts and Women and Tigers, Oh My!, What Am I, a Maid?, and Subtext much were a chance to record the process during the process. A lot of what we learned were in these posts, so by all means check them out.

There were three sides to the project; essays, history, and TOTS. The project went in circles between these three, and were a ton of fun to connect!

Lets talk first about the essays, because why not. We were reading a bunch of essays and texts that showed examples of women in history, and we had to answer a bunch of questions on them. At the time, it seemed real annoying and a waste of time. Actually, though, it was really beneficial for the last leg of this project which we’ll get to later. They helped me learn about the structure of an essay, and how different people have different styles for writing essays. It was really interesting to see how people used evidence, broke things up in certain ways, all that jazz. They also served as fantastic proof for that final product.

Now, history. Mostly, we looked at the 20th century. Starting with the suffragette movement, which was the first wave of feminism, we moved through time to see how things changed, and didn’t change, for women.

We had one milestone specifically focused on the history. We were split into groups and assigned a decade to research and present. Now, due to some circumstances, I wasn’t actually at the presentations. That doesn’t mean I didn’t learn anything. I did a considerable amount of research on the topic, which was quite insightful.

My biggest takeaway from that was one of the research points about women and appearance.

The 70’s were the beginning of the natural makeup idea. Women could still wear makeup, but couldn’t look ‘whorish’ by wearing too much makeup. They had to be slim, and natural looking. It wasn’t just men that pushed this appearance, either, which is sad. its upsetting to think about the expectations for the ideal woman, and how much of that is just their looks.

That would bring us to The Taming of the Shrew. As far as Shakespeare goes, it was well written of course, but kinda rapey. Petruchio is the perfect example of one of those creepy men in todays media that doesn’t listen when someone says no. Looking back now, that’s probably the inspiration for some of those pieces of media. Anyways. It is the perfect form of media to look at when inspecting women throughout history. It portrays exactly the ideal woman, and how to make a shrew that perfect woman. It makes me want to throw up.

Now, I mentioned that final product before. And honestly, you may have figured it out. Regardless, here is the big reveal. We were writing an essay about the continuity and change of women throughout the 20th century, more or less. We used the knowledge from reading all those essays and text, to be able to create the perfect essay. And I say the perfect essay because I have done at least 10 revisions and it is finally approved. Of course I love the challenge, but I liked the first one. Its always good to have feedback though, and I am happy with what I am learning.

One thing that I have struggled with in the past is my conclusions. I always felt that they were weird and rambley. Well, I think a lot of my writing is weird and rambley. Anyways, apparently this was good. I mean, you can take a look at my final essay and see for yourself.

I learned a lot during the course of this project. Of course I am used to feedback, but with the new grading system I am really getting into the grove of things. I learned that what I think is great can always be improved. There is always more to add. It also taught me to really look at the media I consume, and make sure its not super rapey.

Subtext much

Posted on by

Welcome back to another weekly reflection. This week, I think I got the gist of what these are supposed to be. But of course, there has to be a draw back. This week’s is that, due to a series of unfortunate events, I was only at school for one day. But, we learned lots in that one day. The thing that stood out to me most is our study of ‘feminist’ songs, specifically Man, I Feel Like a Woman by Shania Twain. 

We were looking at the song, analyzing it, to see if it was a female empowerment song. And when we first started it, I thought it was. I remember being a little kid at sleepovers singing karaoke versions of it. But taking a closer look, its debatable. Of course, I can’t make a decision for anyone, but there are a couple key reasons I learned about it that made me take a second look. 

The first was a preconception I had coming to the song. I thought that it was Shania Twain who wrote the song. And that’s true, to a certain extent. She co-wrote the song with her then-husband, Robert John “Mutt” Lange. He is a big time music producer, working with artists like AC/DC and Lady Gaga. So, was it really Twain who wanted to write the song, or was it mostly Lange, using Twain’s image to say these things?

The music video plays on the Lange/Twain idea as well. As the song progresses, Twain takes off more and more clothing. It could be seen as empowering to women, if it was Twain’s idea, or that she was totally on board with the idea. On the other hand, it could just be Lange trying to make more money by putting a scantily-clad woman in a music video. 

The other thing about the music video is that it parodies a music video from the 80’s, Robert Palmer’s Addicted to Love. That video shows expressionless female models ‘playing’ instruments in the back. In Twain’s version, they puts blank-eyed male models in tight clothing in the back. It begs the question, for women to become equal do they have to do to men what men do to women?

I honestly don’t know what to think about the song. Its definitely something. But, learning about the subtext in songs makes me pay more attention to what I listen to.

Apparently Petruchio has No Authority

Posted on by

I’d like to preface this post with the fact that I’m still not 100% sure what the teachers want from these posts. Unclear if that’s just me being less than smart, or something else. Regardless, I came up with this idea for my weekly reflection and so were going with it.

One thing that I’ve noticed, that we’ve touched on a wee bit, is the amount of adaptations of The Taming of the Shrew. By adaptations, I mean movies, television shows, plays of course, all that jazz. Believe you me, there are more than enough. The thing is, I guess the themes are timeless or whatever, so people keep making them.

I was curious. So, as one does, I went investigating. Like I mentioned before, there are quite a few adaptations that I could choose from. I decided to look into two of them, and kinda give the low down on them in this post. The ones I’ve chosen are all movies, to be clear, but interesting enough in their own rights.

Just a note, I haven’t actually seen these movies, or not the entire thing. 

The first movie version that we’ll be talking about is the 1929 version of the film, directed by Sam Taylor. This version was in fact talkie*, and the first talkie of The Taming of the Shrew. It starred Mary Pickford as Kate, and her husband, Douglas Fairbanks as Petruchio.

The film is most notable for how Pickford delivered Kate’s last speech of the movie. When Kate goes through the reasons that a wife should obey her husband, she makes a subtle communication with Bianca, which Petruchio does not notice, that shows that Kate has not actually been tamed. This opposes the idea in the original Shakespeare version, where in the end Kate is tamed. In Taylor’s version, Kate knows what’s going on, and responds accordingly. 

The next version is the 1967 adaptation, which I have seen parts of as it is the version we are watching in class. This one, directed by Franco Zeffirelli, is probably the most famous version. Something that is an interesting connection between both this version and the previous version is that in both, Kate and Petruchio are played by real life couples. Zeffirelli’s version starred Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. 

In this version, there does seem to be a bit more of the idea that Kate and Petruchio actually fall in love. It is also noted that Kate tends to cast longing glances at Petruchio, as we’ve discussed in class a few times. 

The biggest difference in Taylor’s performance then Pickford’s comes again to Kate’s last speech. Taylor chose to deliver the speech with seniority, much to the dismay of Burton and Zeffirelli. However, she continues to undermine Petruchio’s authority by leaving the banquet without him. 

I wanted to compare these two because of the different ideals of women in the time period, and how both Pickford and Taylor play the character of Katherina. I think its interesting how in both versions, the decision was made to show that Kate was never actually tamed. That speaks a lot to the idea of the perfect wife, and something to consider when watching these. 

*talkie: a movie with a soundtrack, as opposed to a silent film

What am I, a Maid?

Posted on by

So, this is our second weekly reflection post. Goodie. 

This week was the week in which we began the actual reading of The Taming of the Shrew. We were partially focusing on the language that depicted women, and this idea of the “ideal wife”. What struck me was some of the language that they used, and how it’s still used today. 

These themes, and words, are also very similar to a CommonLit reading called Advice to the Newly Married Lady, which was an actual book written in the 19th century. It explained to women how they should act in a marriage, and how it is in their best interest to act a certain way. Attributes given to the idea wife are, again, similar to Taming of the Shrew, and again, used today. 

I work in a grocery store, and if you’ve ever worked in customer service, you know how people call you names. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it can be kind of demeaning. One thing I noticed was how some of the names I’m called at work are very similar, and have the same theme as words used in Taming of the Shrew, and in Advice to the Newly Married Lady. 

Words like doll, love, sweetie, darling, and girlie are just some of the things people call female presenting people in the customer service industry. And honestly, I find it very demeaning. It takes me back to a time when “sacred and sweet”( I, i, 171, Taming of the Shrew) was the epitome of femininity. 

Sluts and Women and Tigers, Oh My!

Posted on by

Morning folks, and welcome to my final year of blog posts. It is indeed my last year of high school, and truly an end of an era. So cherish it while it lasts, but boy will you have a lot to cherish. This year, one thing that we’ve been ‘asked’ to do is write a weekly reflection blog post. There are many factors making this year odd, (cough covid cough), but this one is sure to be something to be remembered. So let’s start of the year right and talk about sluts!

Context. Okay, so in this project, not that we’ve actually been given lots of information, we’ve been focusing on two topics, which I’ll talk about in this post, the first being the changing role of women, I think. Not super clear but let’s go with it.

We started off by watching a couple videos from different time periods where they used the word slut. We were supposed to be understanding how the word has changed overtime, though in the videos the word was used in different ways. We had an assignment were we looked at the videos which can explain them more.

In the first example the word slut is used, though in a comical way, as a sort of attack against the women in the argument, as well as the person of who pm they were talking about. ‘Jane you ignorant slut’ is an attack, not a joke. It is also said by a man on public television, which has definitely changed. In the Golden Girls episode, several years after the SNL skit, the word slut is used in a more comical light, and is recognized as such by all the characters. The characters kind of laugh at it, like a joke between friends. The key difference in the golden girls scene, though, is that it is said by a woman. This kind of changes the connotation. Still, in both the first and second examples, it is said as a joke and recognized by the audience as such. The third clip from Sex and the City takes a more philosophical look at the word. Carrie looks at it from a serious standpoint, like is she actually a slut. In the context that she seemed to take it, she looked at the word from a negative standpoint. Today, posing that word in any sort of context on TV would be a much more serious thing. It would really only be used if a woman was taking back the word, or if the character was already looked at in a negative light. The point is, overtime the word and is use has changed quite a bit, and it’s definitely not looked at as it once was.

In all honesty, I am not a fan of that word. At all. I know some people are trying to reclaim it, similar to the way the LGBTQ+ community retook the word queer. It just seems so judgemental. It places an assumption upon women that creates a double standard between female identifying people and male identifying people. Men are expected to have many partners, while when women do it they are called derogatory terms like slut. Times may have changed, but this idea still exists. 

Another thing we talked about in the discussion was how it was different when a woman called another woman a slut. Sure it’s different, but it still stings. In the show Grand Army, based on a play called Slut: The Play, girls still call each other sluts, in a bad way. They act a certain way, so they must be sluts. It really sucks that we still think this way.

On a lighter note, the second thing we were focusing on this week was vocabulary. Yay. 

Remember those spelling packages you would get in elementary school, where you would study a bunch of words, do activities with them, and then have a spelling test on them? Well, this was basically that, sans the test. We were learning some, not new, but very interesting words. Words like imperious, and fervent.

I fully thought these were random words. Turns out, sometimes things have rhyme and reason. These words were then used in a passage we had to thematically analyze. Just gonna say solidly that that was a weird passage. Would you have your lover eaten by a tiger or marry another woman?