Blogaround

1. Carnival of Aces Round-Up: Sexual Healthcare (December 18) "As an adolescent and young adult, the messaging I heard was that these tests are very important, but that messaging seemed to take it for granted that all women are sexually active.  The messaging also claimed that the tests might be uncomfortable but wouldn’t be painful.  However, lots of women, especially in the asexual community, have never had sex.  And (as can be seen from the various posts about vaginismus), many women do find pelvic exams very painful."

2. Our Wedding, From The Woman Who Loves Zooey Zephyr (December 18) Congrats to Erin Reed and Zooey Zephyr!

3. Even if Voters ‘Get What They Asked For’ it’s More Likely to Cause a Fascist Death Spiral Than a Lesson Learned (November 18, via) Yeah... there's this narrative in response to the election, that in some sense it's right that people who voted for such a bad president will now have to live under such a bad president. And, some forms of this narrative go so far as to say they'll see how bad it is, and they'll see how wrong they were. 

I personally found this a little bit comforting at first, but I shouldn't have, because if you think about it for a few seconds, it totally falls apart. The ones who will suffer the most from the orange antichrist's presidency are NOT the people who voted for him. And yeah many of his voters will be worse off too, because he doesn't actually have any good plans for how to decrease the price of groceries, but they're not going to suddenly realize "oh we were so wrong to vote for him." 

January 6 happened, you guys. I really thought that would be the end of his popularity. I really thought that when he took a stand against the peaceful transfer of power- which, I learned in school, was one of the key things that makes America great- when he tried to overthrow the US government, for no real reason, just that he wanted to be president... I really thought he would be done after that. I really thought everyone would realize how bad he was right then. But no, here we are 4 years later. Did everybody forget about January 6? "They got what they wanted" isn't going to show these people how wrong they were, if January 6 couldn't do it.

4. Donald Trump and His Allies Don’t Really Care What Kind of Leftist You Are (December 11, via) "Being 'the right kind' of progressive or feminist or socialist can easily become its own goal, rather than winning concrete victories that match the values and goals behind these labels."

Yeah... after the election, I received so many emails from every liberal/social-justice organization I've ever donated to, and overall it made me really uncomfortable. The emails were all like "We're going to do everything we can to FIGHT against Trump" and yeah if that's true, then it's great, I want to support that- but is it really true? Are they just using this moment to get more donations and collect more names for their email lists? *I* don't know how to fight him, but suddenly every single organization is confidently assuring me that they're going to do a stellar job of it, if I just send them money? 

I'm really unhappy with this situation because we need to all work together to fight against the orange antichrist, but I can't trust that all these organizations "on our side" are really doing that- they might see it as an opportunity for themselves to profit off their donors who are scared and therefore more willing to give money.

And, I mean, if they're "just using this moment to get more donations" that's not necessarily a bad thing. If they are truly committed to fighting him, then they will need money, and now is a good opportunity to fundraise. That's not a bad thing.

I guess the issue is, different people have different opinions on what strategy to use to fight him, and just because some organization emails me to say "we're going to do everything we can to fight him" doesn't necessarily mean that their strategies are ones that I think will be effective and I would want to support.

Personally, the kinds of strategies I want to support are: 

• Directly working with people "on the ground" who are in danger because of conservative policies- ie, helping trans people in red states get health care, providing resources for immigrants to help them get housing and jobs, etc. I like this because it's local organizations who really understand people's needs and how to help them in practical ways.
• Lawyers challenging those policies in court. I like this because during the orange antichrist's first term, we did have a lot of success in the courts delaying or blocking his anti-human policies.

That's my thinking right now, but I am interested in learning about other strategies that might be effective- leave a comment if you have an opinion on this.

5. Protecting the Rights of Syrian Refugees (December 19) "Within twenty-four hours of the regime’s overthrow, nine European countries suspended asylum applications from Syrians."

6. Exposing the Honey Influencer Scam (December 22) [23-minute video] I remember seeing some youtube videos where Honey was advertised, a while ago- apparently a LOT of youtubers have done ads for this. They described it as a browser extension which finds coupon codes for you when you shop online- and it's free, there's no catch, you get free money. I remember thinking it sounded suspicious that it just gives you free money and there's no catch, but I couldn't figure out what was actually going on.

So, it turns out, here's what's shady about Honey:

• The way they make money is by getting the affiliate commission from the sale. (If you don't know what "affiliate commission" is: If you're a blogger or youtuber or whatever, and you share a link where someone can buy something, it could be an affiliate link, which means that if people click it and buy the thing, *you* get a cut of the money. [I do this here on the blog.] So what Honey is doing is replacing a cookie with its own cookie, so it will get the commission- possibly taking the affiliate commission away from whoever posted the affiliate link in the first place.)
• Also, Honey claims that it will always find the BEST coupon code for the buyer, but this is NOT true. Turns out, Honey makes deals with online stores about which coupon codes Honey will give to customers. In this way, it discourages the customers from searching for better coupon codes- Honey assures them that they're already getting the best price. Extremely shady!

(And I haven't used Honey, but my browser has a built-in tool that finds coupon codes, so now I'm wondering if that one that I use is equally shady.)

6. Biden commutes most federal death row sentences to life in prison before Trump takes office (December 23) 

Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?

Abigail kneels down before David. Image source.

I've been reading Wilda Gafney's book, "Womanist Midrash," which is a womanist perspective on the bible. ("Womanism" means feminism from a black perspective.) I was really interested in her take on the story of David and Abigail, so let's talk about that.

This bible story in found in 1 Samuel 25. Let me summarize: This is before David became king. Saul is still the king, but there is a prophecy that David will be king eventually, so he is on the run from Saul. David and his men send a message to Nabal, a wealthy man, asking for him to give them some food. The message says that David's men had previously helped Nabal's shepherds and servants.

Nabal replies that he doesn't know who David is, and he's not going to give him anything.

In response to this, David is mad. He tells his men to get their swords, and they're going to go and kill every man in the house of Nabal. 

Nabal's wife Abigail hears about this. She gets a whole bunch of food ready, and comes out to meet David as he is on his way to attack Nabal's household. Here's what she does:

When Abigail saw David, she quickly got off her donkey and bowed down before David with her face to the ground. She fell at his feet and said: “Pardon your servant, my lord, and let me speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name means Fool, and folly goes with him. And as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my lord sent. And now, my lord, as surely as the Lord your God lives and as you live, since the Lord has kept you from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hands, may your enemies and all who are intent on harming my lord be like Nabal. And let this gift, which your servant has brought to my lord, be given to the men who follow you.

“Please forgive your servant’s presumption. The Lord your God will certainly make a lasting dynasty for my lord, because you fight the Lord’s battles, and no wrongdoing will be found in you as long as you live. Even though someone is pursuing you to take your life, the life of my lord will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the Lord your God, but the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling. When the Lord has fulfilled for my lord every good thing he promised concerning him and has appointed him ruler over Israel, my lord will not have on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself. And when the Lord your God has brought my lord success, remember your servant.”

It works. She's able to talk David out of killing anybody.

David said to Abigail, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands. Otherwise, as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak.”

Then David accepted from her hand what she had brought him and said, “Go home in peace. I have heard your words and granted your request.”

Then Abigail goes home, and Nabal is drunk, so she doesn't say anything to him right then. The next day, she tells him what happened. The bible says, "About ten days later, the Lord struck Nabal and he died."

When David hears that Nabal is dead, he sends messengers to ask Abigail to come and marry him. So she does. Also, David marries Ahinoam of Jezreel. And his first wife, Michal, was given to a new husband when David was on the run from Saul.

That's the story.

Now, this is not one of the really well-known bible stories that you always hear about in church, but it comes up if you ever do a bible study on the life of David. So I've read some Christian leaders' takes on it. Back when I was evangelical, here's how I viewed this story:

First of all, Abigail is the hero of this story. She was very wise and took action to stop David from overreacting and killing the men of Nabal's household. She was courageous, and she knew what to say to convince him. Good job. We love Abigail.

And Nabal- we don't like Nabal. He's rude to David. Abigail calls him a fool. He gets drunk and doesn't even know that Abigail is out there fixing the damage he's done and saving his life.

That's how the Christian commentaries I read long ago viewed Abigail and Nabal, and Gafney's take agrees with them. No issues there. The really striking thing is the difference in how they see David in this story.

I won't say "this is evangelicals' view on the story of David and Abigail" because this is not a well-known bible story, so most evangelicals don't have any opinion on it at all. But I remember reading a book about the life of David, back then, and reading bible commentaries. Here's what they said about David: When David announces that he's going to go and kill every man in Nabal's house, David is definitely in the wrong. Nabal was rude, and inhospitable, and that was a very serious thing in ancient near east culture- but you don't go on a murderous rampage because of that. Not cool, David. Good thing Abigail was there to talk him out of it.

All of us make bad decisions sometimes, and it's very important to have someone in your life- a trusted friend or partner, perhaps- who can call you out on it. It's so important to have someone like Abigail, who can see that you're making a bad decision, and has the courage to tell you (in a nice way) to stop. And you should have the humility to listen to them.

That's was how I viewed this story, way back then. David was in the wrong, but in the sense of "we all make bad decisions sometimes, and the lesson we learn from this story is that we should listen to wise friends who call us out on it." David is still the hero of the story- the good guy, though he clearly has flaws- and Nabal is the bad guy.

But then I read "Womanist Midrash," and I'm like, why did I think David was the good guy?

It is chilling as a modern woman to hear the beloved David of Scripture prepare to blame Abigail and God for the lethal violence he would have inflicted upon her in mere moments if she had not the God-given sense to hurry to him with gifts and obeisance. As a womanist, I am reminded of the ways in which batterers blame their victims for their assaults, sometimes invoking religious justifications. Abigail is not a romantic. The valorization of Abigail's buying her life and those of the servants and/or slaves on her husband's estate with her self-abasement and his pilfered goods overlooks her vulnerability to David. The union of Abigail and David is no more romantic than those of battered women who do and say anything to calm their abusers in the hope of preventing today's beating. Abigail's generosity and submission is a last-ditch, desperate gamble masked in charm.

!!!!

She's right.

When Abigail goes and bows down and apologizes to David and offers him a bunch of food, people's lives are in danger. I always read this story like it was about "is David going to commit a very bad sin or not" but that's not it at all. It's "there is a violent group of men coming to attack us, what can I do or say to save our lives?"

From Abigail's perspective, if her family is killed, it doesn't matter if they're killed by a "bad guy" or by a "good guy who has flaws, none of us are perfect ya know."

And Abigail's whole speech about "oh I know you're such a good guy and God has chosen you, and wouldn't it be such a shame if there was a black mark on your name for committing mass murder"- none of that is genuine. She is just saying whatever she needs to say to get him to not kill her people.

Like an abuse victim, being sweet and nice in an attempt to talk a violent man out of hurting her. Even when it works, when he calms down and says "I was wrong," that's still not a good relationship. It hasn't actually solved any problems. It just means that he won't hurt her this time.

Why did I think Nabal was the bad guy in the story, and David was the good guy? David asks Nabal for food, and Nabal says "who tf is David"- that was bad, so Nabal is a bad guy. David responds by announcing to his army, "LET'S KILL HIM," so David is... well we love David, David is a good guy, but he wasn't perfect, as you can see here.

Isn't David worse than Nabal in this story? Why did I think Nabal was the bad guy and David was the good guy? Aren't they kind of... the same?

"Womanist Midrash" says:

Abigail may have learned how to negotiate with a violent man in her own home. ...

She is clever and savvy and knows her way around a power-hungry man's ego.

The way I used to view this story is like... superhero morality. You ever watch a superhero movie, and the hero kills a bunch of the bad guy's minions without even thinking about it, and that makes him so cool and badass, and then the villain kills the hero's best friend, and the movie treats that as such a big deal? We know and understand the hero, so his actions may be wrong or violent sometimes but we still love him and see him as a good guy. And we don't care about his victims.

That's fine when it's a fictional story, but evangelicals believe that these bible stories really happened. That there really were innocent servants in Nabal's household, that David was going to kill- and don't their stories matter just as much as David's?

At the end of 1 Samuel 25, Nabal dies, and David sends messengers to ask Abigail to marry him. I always viewed this as a happy ending, like "oh it's so great that she doesn't have to be married to that jerk Nabal any more, now she can be with David, who is a good guy!" But, was David a good husband? Why do we think he would be better than Nabal? 

And did she even have a choice? David asks Nabal for free food, Nabal says no, and David's response is "LET'S KILL HIM." I wonder what would have happened if David asked Abigail to marry him and she said no.

Why did I think David was the good guy in this story? It's a result of a view of the bible which holds up certain characters as heroes, role models of faith, and we believe we should learn from their example. And we say "he wasn't perfect, he did bad things sometimes, and we should also learn from that, it shows us what not to do" but where's the compassion for his victims? It's all about what actions an individual should or shouldn't take, to be a good moral person, with very little awareness of how his actions affect other people.

I'll end by posting this tweet from 2021. (The tweet is related to the story of David and Bathsheba, which is not the one I discussed in this blog post- David rapes Bathsheba, murders her husband, and then marries her. Then the prophet Nathan comes and tells him that was wrong. The typical Christian framing of this story is "well clearly David did a bad thing, he wasn't perfect, but isn't it so wonderful that God used him anyway?")

Imagine how Christians would respond to sexual abuse in our ranks if we had been taught that the Prophet Nathan modeled true leadership because he risked his life by rebuking the king for his abuses of power instead of being taught that King David is the model for leadership.

— Rev. Benjamin Cremer (@Brcremer) February 12, 2021

When Abigail's servants' lives were in danger, it didn't matter if David was "a man after God's own heart." It didn't matter to Abigail, who said whatever she needed to say to talk him down. Why did I think David was any better than Nabal in this story?

---

Posts about the book "Womanist Midrash" by Wilda C. Gafney:

Womanist Midrash 
The Slavery We Ignore in the Book of Exodus 
The Second-Worst Bible Story 
Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I
Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?

---

Related:

For Rizpah (or, a post about human sacrifice in the bible)

"Christians Aren't Perfect" When It's Convenient

Blogaround

1. Sarah McBride Wasn’t Looking for a Fight on Trans Rights (December 1, via) "I always knew that there would be some members of the Republican caucus who would seek to use my service representing the greatest state in the Union in Congress as an opportunity for them to distract from the fact that they have absolutely no real policy solutions for the issues that actually plague this country. And, in some cases, to grab headlines themselves. I was not surprised that there was an effort to politicize an issue that no one truly cares about—what bathroom I use."

2. Why Queen Vashti Should Be Considered a Hero (December 11) "She was one of the first recorded instances of a woman saying, 'I refuse to be treated like a sex object, because that is not what I am.'"

3. Judge rejects sale of Alex Jones’ Infowars to The Onion in dispute over bankruptcy auction (December 11) I really don't understand any of this. 

Okay let's start with this: Alex Jones spread the conspiracy theory that kids were not really murdered at Sandy Hook and they were acting. Why? Why? Why would anyone say such a thing? It's hard to imagine a worse way to respond to a mass shooting, my god. What is the motive here? I guess I always assumed it's because this type of liar always says whatever wild thing will get their followers riled up, without any consideration of whether it's true- but this is unusual in that he's defaming very specific people rather than just, ya know, general scaremongering and racist urban legends that are typical of that genre. There are loads of liars out there spreading conspiracy theories along those lines, and you can't really hold them accountable because what they say is vague enough you can't actually point to any specific harm they are doing in a literal legal sense. Why on earth didn't Jones just stick to that kind of hateful nonsense? Why did he start conspiracy theories about very specific people, who really do exist and can easily prove that he's lying and directly harming them? Is he just so used to saying whatever ridiculous thing passes through his mind, without caring one bit about whether it's true, that he didn't realize this lie could actually get him in trouble? (And also how awful it is, just on a basic-human-decency level?)

Anyway, then a judge ordered that Jones owed the families of Sandy Hook victims $1.5 billion, and he will have to sell all his stuff to pay them. Good. He deserves to lose everything. Some people lost their children, and then Jones was cruel to them in the worst way, saying their children weren't even real, my god, I can't even imagine what would make someone say something like that.

And then Infowars was auctioned and the Onion came to buy it, and I also didn't really follow what was going on there, but it seems good because the Onion has the support of the Sandy Hook families, and plans to, ya know, not continue to run Infowars as a hateful conspiracy theory machine.

And then a judge said actually that auction was invalid and the Onion can't buy it- why not? What's the issue? I've seen people on the internet saying this judge is on Jones's side and that's why he ruled this way, but I can't get my head around that either- I truly can't fathom anyone being on Jones's side here. (I guess Infowars has a lot of followers- yeah I don't understand that either...) I can't believe that that's the reason this judge ruled this way, because why on earth would anyone want to support Alex Jones here? Surely there was some different reason? Some legal technicality? And then the lawyers will just get that cleared up and continue the process and yes Jones will lose everything, like he should, right?

I've been feeling this way about a lot of news stories I read lately, actually. I read what happened, and then I read some people on the internet talking about why it happened and what the motives are, and I mean, it's just speculation by random people on the internet- you can't rely on that. I have many questions and not really any good way to get to the bottom of what's going on. (This is something I hope to blog about more.)

4. Metal musicians perform "O Holy Night" (2023, via) Wow this is INCREDIBLE.

Usually in December I post a roundup of my favorite Christmas songs. I'm not doing that this year- please refer to this 2023 post because I still like the same songs: Christmas Music Round-up.

"Our God: A Shapes Primer" (baby book review)

Book cover for "Our God: A Shapes Primer."

I got this book for my baby: "Our God: A Shapes Primer", by Danielle Hitchen. I got this because I'm interested in getting Christian books for my kids. Here's my review of it.

---

Overview of the book's content

This is a board book, with durable pages for babies who try to tear or suck on everything (babies less than 18 months old, more or less).

Each 2-page spread shows a shape, an object that is that shape, and a bible verse about how God is metaphorically like that object. For example, the first page has the word "circle" inside a circle, and then has a circle-shaped rock and the bible verse "Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord himself, is the Rock eternal. Isaiah 26:4"

This book is part of a series of board books called "Baby Believer," a name which I side-eye because how can you expect your baby to be a Christian. They are just a baby. What on earth.

---

I love this book

Okay, I love this book so much, because the concept is just extremely funny to me. I've got a small baby who drools constantly and just wants to put everything in her mouth, and this book's got me reading bible verses to her? It's a hilarious, surreal experience, my baby with her little grabby hands, pulling the book toward her slobbery mouth so she can bite the edge, and I'm sitting there like "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." This is so funny, I love it.

Also, many of the objects corresponding to the shapes are kind of a stretch? The triangle is a beam of light from a flashlight. The circle is a big rock- like, I guess a rock can be a circle, but... usually not really??? The semicircle is an ear. (Why are we teaching babies about semicircles? That doesn't feel like one of the standard shapes that babies learn.) I also find this extremely funny.

After I first read this book, for the next few days whenever I saw a semicircle, my brain was like, "God is like a semicircle" and I cracked myself up.

So, I don't know if my baby is learning anything at all from this, but I love the entire experience of reading it to her.

I guess when she's a little older, she'll be able to learn the shapes. As for the bible verses with metaphors about what God is like, I don't know if it makes sense to put those in a baby book. But like I said, I love this for how bizarre it is.

And I like the bible verses that have been chosen for this book, so that's cool.

---

Conclusion

If you want to read a Christian book to a baby, this is a good one. But maybe you should also step back and ask yourself, "Why do I want to read a Christian book to a baby?" I mean, I'm enjoying this because I like the bible and also the hilarious juxtaposition of serious theological ideas and a baby whose main goal is to put every object into her mouth. So if you also love that, then I recommend this book.

Blogaround

1. China’s Facebook Goes Dark, Taking a Generation’s Memories With It (December 4) Wow! Renren, China's version of Facebook, has shut down. I had a Renren account, long long ago. But it's been years since I thought about Renren. Totally forgot it existed.

But one important takeaway from this is to not trust websites like this to store your photos/ whatever other data forever for you. I keep all my photos on my computer or external hard drive- with a cloud service (that I pay money for) as a backup. I don't trust any clouds- maybe someday those big companies will suddenly change their policies and make it massively inconvenient or impossible to access your photos, and when you complain about it and try to tell them how irreplaceable those photos were, they will be like *shrug*.

If a family member posts a good photo on Facebook, I save it to my computer. I don't trust that Facebook will always exist and will always have a way to easily find old photos. Everyone should do this! It boggles my mind that some people look at photos of themselves that their friends posted on Facebook- for example, your friends who attended your wedding posted photos- and then don't download them, and just believe that those photos will always be there on Facebook and they can look at them any time. !!!!! I don't trust any clouds.

2. How South Korea’s Robust Protest Culture Shut Down Martial Law—For Now (December 7) 

3. Why RFK Wants to Ban Fluoride (December 2) 

4. Liveblog! Trans Lawyer Chase Strangio Badgers SCOTUS For 'Health Care,' 'Equal Protection' (December 4) "Strangio represents the families and is the first out trans lawyer ever to argue before SCOTUS. This very minute is fucking historic, y’all."

5. Advent Calendar Advent Calendar (December 2) lolllllllll

6. TikTok Ban: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (November 21) "And again, I am not giving TikTok a pass here. I'm just pointing out that its behavior is pretty consistent with Silicon Valley's own very shitty standards."

7. President Bashar Al-Assad Has Fled Syria and His Brutal Regime Is Finally Over (December 8, via) "Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Assad has gone to brutal lengths to cling to power—including by deploying devastating chemical attacks on civilians, including children. All told, by 2022, more than 306,000 civilians had been killed in the war, according to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner."

8. If you're interested in obscure features of the fossil record which can't be adequately explained by young-earth creationism, here are 2 blog posts for you:

Millions of Moroccan Mosasaur Teeth Create Dental Crisis for Flood Geology (November 29) "If all these teeth were deposited in a single year during the Flood, why are they concentrated in specific layers and not scattered throughout the geological column?"

Flood Geology Can’t Explain Dino Droppings (November 30) 

And a third one also from Joel Duff: Building Truth on Sand: The Hidden Cost of Sharing False ‘Evidence’ for Creation (December 4) "I found no evidence that this behavior exists at all in any ant species"

9. Peaceful Solutions (December 8) "The tens of millions of people who have been financially ruined and who have died suffering needlessly from engineered systemic neglect also were human beings, just as Brian Thompson was, and they also had families that loved them, just as Brian Thompson did. By the tens of millions, the survivors also mourn the killing of their loved ones—whose deaths, while enacted by deliberate choice and with clear motive, are not deemed murders, because the decisions that caused their anguish and death were legal, and, more to the point, were extremely profitable."

Persecution

Rainbow flag. Image source.

Here's something that happened in the queer community in Shanghai. I wrote this post a while ago and I'm just publishing it now.

---

Event 1

So, I was part of a group of queer people that was planning an event. We were holding it at a gay bar in Shanghai, which I will call Kevin's Bar for the purposes of this story. The bar owner, Kevin, is great, he's done a lot to support the queer community in Shanghai, and some of my friends have held events at his bar before.

In the planning for our queer event, we were working on making images and writing a description to advertise for it. These would be posted on WeChat, the texting/ social media app that everyone in China uses. Here's what Kevin told us about our advertising: We shouldn't use keywords like LGBTQ, queer, rainbow, and so on. Because, the Chinese government can read everything you post on WeChat, and we don't really want to draw their attention.

So we put a lot of rainbow colors in our images, and we wrote that the event was about "celebrating our identities" or something like that. If you read it, you understand it's talking about being queer, but a computer looking for keywords is not going to catch it.

When we made announcements in person to advertise for our event, we said it was about being LGBTQ, but we didn't say that when we advertised on WeChat.

Also, the information we got from Kevin was that we can bring pride flags to the event, but not the rainbow flag specifically. I guess he was thinking about our audience members taking pictures and posting them on WeChat, and the rainbow flag makes it way too obvious what kind of event it is. He doesn't want that in the pictures.

So we did all these things like Kevin said. He's the bar owner and we don't want to put him at risk.

Anyway, at the event itself, the first thing we did was show off our flags and see if the audience could identify them. Fun! After that, I hung my asexual flag on something on the stage. I was really excited about having my ace flag there- I'm not really "out" so it feels good for me when I'm in a queer space where I can be "out."

Later, in the middle of the event, Kevin quietly came and took my ace flag and folded it up and put it away. I was kind of unhappy about that, but later I figured out it was because he didn't want the attention from the Powers That Be if they see photos on WeChat with any kind of pride flag.

---

Event 2

Well the first event went well and the audience liked it, so we started planning a second event, also at Kevin's Bar. We brought our flags, just like the first time, but then while we were setting up, Kevin told one of our group members that he didn't want us to use the flags, so we didn't use them.

I have to say, I kind of wondered why Kevin wanted us to be so careful, when I often saw WeChat posts from Kevin's Bar, advertising other events, and those posts were very obviously gay. But, we have to do what Kevin says because he's the bar owner and he knows the situation better than us. 

I've heard of gay bars in Shanghai getting fined or shut down because the police falsely claimed that people were using drugs there. I have no idea how true any of that is, but... yeah it's definitely true that there is risk, owning a queer bar in Shanghai.

It's like... the government doesn't *really* like the queer movement, but we're not doing anything that's actually illegal, so for the most part the government doesn't really care. Just keep doing queer things, but low-key, and the government won't care enough to do anything about it. Just don't be too obvious about it. And it's not at all clear what "too obvious" would mean- Kevin thought that posting photos with queer flags on WeChat would be too obvious. That's where he drew the line. But since there's no actual rule about it, and we aren't doing anything that's actually illegal, it's impossible to say what exactly we are or aren't allowed to do.

---

Event 3

Then we thought, for our next event, let's do something really big during Pride Month! We did a lot of work planning a really cool event for Pride Month.

But then, about 1 week before the event, one of our members (let's call her Wanda) was visited by the police. (Wanda quickly deleted our group chat from her phone as soon as the police came.) The police officer had a whole bunch of questions about our group and what the event was about. Wanda kind of gave vague answers- don't lie to the police, but you can give vague answers- and said it was about people telling personal stories from their lives- but didn't mention it was about being queer.

Apparently she talked to Wanda for a long time. Apparently the police officer said nice things, like how it's nice that we're doing events to encourage people and build community. And she mentioned that June is Pride Month, and Wanda was like "oh huh yeah I guess it is." The police officer also said it's great that China no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental illness. Basically it's like the government wants to have this image like they accept queer people, but don't push it. (Please note that China does not have same-sex marriage.)

Wanda told us about all this, and as a group we decided we needed to cancel the event. (Later we found out that Kevin had also been visited by the police.) Because, what if we do the event anyway, and the police are watching us, and they take issue with something that we say there? Who even knows what kind of thing they might take issue with? And we don't want to get Kevin in trouble, and also all of our group members (planning the event) are immigrants in China... the government has the right to not renew our visas. We don't want to get in trouble.

We were all really discouraged when this happened. Asking "why do we even bother trying to do queer events like this in China?" We posted on WeChat to tell everyone the event was cancelled (we wanted to be very obvious about cancelling it, so the police would lose interest in us). 

Some of the audience members from the previous events messaged me on WeChat to ask why it was cancelled. I said it was because of "the situation" and "I can't talk about it on WeChat" and they basically got the point.

This didn't just happen to us; this happened in the context of a wave of increased scrutiny from the Chinese government, towards all events like this. (Not just related to queerness- I know of other events that got cancelled around this time too, for fear that the government might not like them.) That year I didn't see any Pride events advertised on WeChat at all.

Basically, this is the way it goes: normally in China, the government doesn't really care, and you can hold queer events and whatever. Maybe the government doesn't like it, but if you keep a low profile then they won't care enough to actually do anything about it. But every once in a while, they suddenly "crack down." And for a few months, you don't do anything because "it's sensitive" and you don't want to take the risk. But slowly the situation goes back to normal, slowly you can start doing public queer events again.

The thing that really makes me sad is this: I'm fine because I have a good group of queer friends here. Even without a public event, I'm still connected to the queer community. But what about other queer people, who are alone and wish they could meet queer friends? If there aren't public queer events, how will they ever find us?

Because there were no Pride events in Shanghai that year, one of my friends (let's call her Tasha) decided to put together a performance of a play with queer characters and themes. I wasn't involved in the planning for it, but a bunch of my friends were. It was very secretive. They told their friends about it in person- "we're working on doing this queer play"- and then when they had figured out the time and place and wanted to officially invite people, they sent out messages on WeChat that said it was a "party," trusting that the invitees would understand what it actually was, even though we can't talk about it on WeChat. 

I went to the play. At the beginning, Tasha made an announcement to tell the audience "this is a queer play, don't post about it on WeChat" etc. There was even a backup plan- if the police come, we are going to pretend we are all watching a movie together. I enjoyed the play; they did a good job even though it was very hastily thrown together. At the end someone said happily "we didn't get raided!" So, success!

---

What persecution is

I wanted to blog about this to show how persecution actually works, and how it's so much different than what American evangelical Christians think. Christians in the US have all sorts of ideas about how the "evil" Chinese government persecutes Christians. When I first moved to China, I worried about whether it was safe to tell people I'm a Christian. Like, the minute I say it, will police pop up out of nowhere?

No, it's not like that at all. 

Here's what I've seen, about how the queer community is persecuted in China. And I believe it's similar for Christianity in China (because my first trip to China was a mission trip, and the pastors and missionaries we met on the trip basically told us similar things). The government doesn't really care that much, as long as you don't make it too public and visible. There are churches in China- very easy to find a church- there are gay bars in China, and it gives the impression that the government has no issue with it at all. The average Chinese person would be totally unaware of any persecution. But the leaders of the churches/ queer groups know there are invisible restrictions. You don't know exactly where the lines are, but you know there's a risk that if you do too much, too publicly, the government will come and ask you questions. So you're held back by your own fear and uncertainty, rather than any explicit action from the government.

When conservative Christians in the US think they're being persecuted, they make a big deal about it, posting on social media "I'm being persecuted!" That's not how persecution actually works. Instead, it's keeping a low profile by not posting rainbow flags in your event ads on WeChat. It's being careful, being unable to say or do what you want to say or do, even though you're not doing anything illegal- because you don't know at what point the police will be unhappy with it and find a way to accuse you of something. It's the fear of being fined or deported- being powerless to fight back if that happens, and so you just don't take the risk. It's finding each other through word-of-mouth, because it's too risky to have public events.

---

Related:

OF COURSE Martyrs Don't Work That Way

Blogaround

1. ICC issues arrest warrants for Israel's Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas leader (November 22)

2. How Trump’s “Mass Deportation” Plan Would Ruin America (Sep/Oct issue, via) This article has statistics about how a huge percentage of farm workers (and workers in other essential industries) are undocumented, and if they were all deported, it would devastate the US economy.

So... the thing I'm confused about is, if the country needs them, then why is it illegal? The US immigration policies don't make sense, then- the economy is dependent on people breaking immigration law. ????? What's going on here? We need to change the immigration law to reflect the fact that we really need immigrants. Right?

3. Star Power: China’s Businesses Count Cost of Fake Reviews (November 27) "Allegations from former Chagee employees also surfaced online, claiming the chain imposed strict limits on negative reviews, allowing just three per 10,000 orders — any more and the employees’ salaries would be docked."

Also from Sixth Tone: Copy Right: The Painstaking Method and Magic of Mastering a Replica (November 29) "Across China, a growing number of national museums are embracing 'craft restoration' — a method that emphasizes recreating artifacts not just for their appearance, but as faithful embodiments of the techniques that originally shaped them."

4. Big Pharma Is the Only Reason Anyone Still Dies From HIV (November 29) "The second problem is that the pharma industry spends millions a year lobbying Congress to keep its R&D costs a secret. It’s one thing to tell Congress you need to charge high prices to recover your costs, but it’s a little disingenuous if you spend $379 million a year to make sure nobody knows what those costs are."

5. Hal Lindsey is gone (the Late, Great Planet Earth is not) (November 30) "They taught their followers that the only thing that mattered was being 'Rapture ready,' but away from the microphones they had all made sure they were ready for life — long life — without a Rapture. I wish we’d all been ready."

Also from the Slacktivist: Take back the web (what’s in your RSS feed?) (December 2) "But if making more money for Google — and Meta, and X — is not the primary goal of your time on the internet, then you may find that using an RSS is a wonderful, glorious, liberating thing."

A Comprehensive Pro-Choice Ethic

A protester holding a sign that says, "Health care is a human right." Image source.

Occasionally I see "pro-life" people advocating for the idea of a comprehensive pro-life ethic. Typically when people use the term "pro-life", it means "abortion should be illegal" and that's it. But, those who have a comprehensive pro-life ethic say that's not good enough. Pro-life can't just mean you care about protecting an unborn baby's life, but the moment they're born, you don't care any more. People who are truly pro-life are anti-war. They oppose the death penalty. They want gun control. They support universal health care.

I like that. If you're gonna be pro-life, be that kind of pro-life person. Provided, of course, that you recognize that abortion may be necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The most obvious cases are where the pregnancy is causing a life-threatening medical problem- but abortion may save someone's life in a less direct way than that. Domestic violence victims are more at risk of being murdered by their abuser if they are pregnant. 

Usually I put "pro-life" in scare quotes because it's not about life at all, it's just about banning abortion. But hey, if you really do have a comprehensive pro-life ethic, I won't even put it in scare quotes. You really are pro-life. 

I'm thinking about how to conceptualize something similar for pro-choice ideology.

I always felt like the pro-choice movement wasn't really *for* me, because I have kids and I'm happy being a mom. Sure, I can help out the movement by talking about how my experience of pregnancy was so bad, and no one should have to go through that if they don't want to- but it's not *for* me. It's for women who want to have sex but not have babies. Right?

(Note, though, that a high percentage of people who have abortions already have kids. [This data from 2019 says it's 60%.] The stereotype of the slut who just wants to have sex with whoever, and hates children, is not at all representative of who is actually getting abortions.)

Anyway, when I watched the video from the Democratic National Convention this year, and saw Kate Cox there representing Texas, along with Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, that really affected me. 

(If you haven't heard about Kate Cox, here's her story: She was pregnant, and then found out her unborn baby had a health problem and would not survive, and that for the sake of her own health and her ability to have another pregnancy in the future, it would be best for her to have an abortion. But she lived in Texas, and it was a whole ordeal which was in the news, about whether of not the state of Texas would let her have an abortion. Eventually she went to a different state and had an abortion. This situation was very shocking because of how clear-cut it seemed to be- Cox was basically a "perfect victim"- she's white, married, she's already a mom, and it was a wanted pregnancy. And there was no way her unborn baby would be able to survive. And still, Republican politicians in Texas did not allow it.)

The video from the Democratic National Convention serves as an update on what happened to Kate Cox after that. She got pregnant again, and fortunately, this pregnancy has not had any massive problems like that, and she's looking forward to a healthy baby who will be born in January. And everyone cheered. Everyone is happy for her. The former president of Planned Parenthood is happy for her. (Here's a link to the video- but I'll warn you it's sad to watch because everyone is talking about Kamala Harris being president, but that is not gonna happen.)

Seeing that video, I was struck with this thought, "what if the pro-choice movement really is about choice?" Here's someone who wants to be pregnant, wants to have a baby, and she gets pregnant and decides NOT to have an abortion, and as pro-choice people we celebrate that. In Cox's case, actually, she wanted to have another child, and an abortion was a necessary step on the way to reach that goal- because the complications in her pregnancy meant that there was a risk she would be infertile. She wanted to have another baby, and having an abortion was a means to get there. 

Maybe that's what it's about. 

In the "pro-life" movement, they talk about pro-choice people as if pro-choice people just really love killing babies, and twirling our mustaches evilly or something. But what if the pro-choice movement is actually like this: It's not about celebrating abortion as a good thing in and of itself. (Actually, in an ideal world, nobody would be in a situation where they need an abortion.) It's about being able to choose the life you want for yourself, and sometimes abortion is needed in order to get there. 

So we want to protect people's right to have an abortion, if they want to. And in the same way, we want people to be able to have babies, if they want to.

If we want to be comprehensively pro-choice, that requires a whole lot more than just "abortion is legal."

What if someone wants to have a baby, but for various practical reasons they feel like it's not really possible, and their only real option is to have an abortion? This is not okay. To be truly pro-choice, we need to address the problems that restrict people's choices in this area. It is very expensive to pay for prenatal care and hospital bills for childbirth- being truly pro-choice means supporting universal health care. It means society needs to implement policies that will help people get out of poverty- everything about kids is expensive, and that's one of the big reasons people have abortions.

And remember earlier I mentioned that victims of domestic violence are more likely to be murdered if they are pregnant? If we say "okay, then they can get an abortion, for their own safety", that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. No one should be in a situation where they have to choose between their pregnancy and their safety; that's terrible. What changes does society need to make to keep people safe from abuse? We need to advocate for all those things, in order to be truly pro-choice.

But let's take it farther than that.

I always hear politicians saying "women can make their own choices about their bodies." This is nothing more than a euphemism for "abortion is legal" (or, possibly, "abortion is legal and accessible"). I don't like that. I want to live in a world where "women can make their own choices about their bodies" means exactly that.

Certainly that includes abortion access, but it includes so much more than that.

Let's start with giving birth. Giving birth is scary, and some people have traumatic experiences, or problems come up- and I sometimes hear moms reassuring each other by saying "the only thing that matters is that the baby is born healthy." 

I disagree with this.

If you have a traumatic birth experience because the medical staff don't respect your right to make informed decisions about your own body, that is not okay. That matters. If people tell you that your trauma doesn't matter because your baby turned out fine, they're wrong.

For example: if people are pressuring you to get an epidural during childbirth, or to not get an epidural, that's NOT COOL. It should be your decision.

I've heard about hospitals which recommend C-sections to birthing women at a higher rate than is necessary, because that's what's more convenient for the hospital. (This is an issue in China- I don't know about in the US.) For a C-section, the hospital can control the timing and the entire process. When there are lots of women giving birth there, it's hard to allocate rooms for all of them, and you don't know how long it will take to have a natural labor and vaginal birth- it's easier to just do C-sections. 

But a C-section is a major surgery; you shouldn't do that unless there's a good reason. 

Another example about giving birth: VBAC. (Vaginal birth after C-section.) This means that in a previous pregnancy, the person gave birth via C-section, and now in their current pregnancy they would like to try to give birth vaginally. Vaginal birth is better in terms of the recovery process for the birthing person- but VBAC is riskier than a vaginal birth in someone who doesn't have a C-section scar. The scar might rupture during labor. You need to be aware of the risks of trying this. You need a doctor with experience. 

All of this should be included in what people mean when they talk about "women can make decisions about their own bodies."

And so many other aspects of pregnancy. When you're pregnant, you always get random people trying to police what you eat, or telling you you're gaining too much weight... Emily Oster's book "Expecting Better" (which I reviewed here) was all about giving pregnant people the data they need to make choices during pregnancy, because typically that data isn't really available. It's about making choices during pregnancy, but I'm not talking about abortion. Even though this is for people who are NOT having abortions, it's an important pro-choice area.

And let's talk about breastfeeding and "making choices about your own body." Many people are pressured to breastfeed, or pressured to not breastfeed, or shamed and treated like they're a "bad mom" because of whether or not they breastfeed. Not cool. First of all, don't judge people for this. But, more important than that is people need to have the resources and support they need if they want to breastfeed. You need information about what to do- it's not straightforward. Maybe you need a lactation consultant who can give you hands-on instruction. If you have a full-time job and you want to pump milk, you have to buy a pump, and you need your boss to give you break time during the day, and a private room where you can pump.

Breastfeeding isn't something you can just do all in your own power- you need to be in an environment that has the necessary resources and support.

Okay, let's expand this pro-choice ethic to other areas of women's health care.

I've heard some women talk about being prescribed birth control when they were teenagers, because of acne or some other problem like that- not because they were having sex. And, looking back on it, they are unhappy about how they had to deal with a lot of bad side effects from the birth control hormones, and they feel like they didn't really have a choice. It was just "well we tried various things and they didn't solve your acne problem, so the next step is to take birth control" and that's that, and as a teenager they didn't have a real choice.

I've also heard that it's very painful to get an IUD inserted, and it's common that doctors don't inform patients about the pain, or offer any anesthesia or pain medication. Not cool. Are the people who talk about "women have the right to make choices about their own bodies" going to do something about this?

Or the many other scenarios where women's medical issues are not taken seriously by doctors. Being comprehensively pro-choice means having a society where women really are given the support and resources and information they need to make medical decisions for themselves.

But actually, this shouldn't just be about women, and/or people who can get pregnant. Everyone, of any gender, should have the freedom, information, and resources to make medical decisions for themselves.

This is something I've blogged about before, in the context of the question "what should consent look like for children in a medical setting?" I'm very interested in the concept of consent as it relates to health care.

You may have noticed that this "comprehensive pro-choice ethic" is in no way the opposite of a "comprehensive pro-life ethic." There's a huge amount of overlap. Many policies, such as universal health care, very obviously belong in both. People who are truly pro-life and people who are truly pro-choice should all advocate for universal health care. I mean, I don't want to spin this as "we have so much in common so let's just forget about abortion and focus on those other things instead"- I do think abortion access is very important. But being pro-choice shouldn't only be about abortion. It should be about "the right to make choices about your own body" in all health care areas.

---

This post is part of the October/November 2024 Carnival of Aces. The topic is "sexual healthcare."

---

Related:

What Pregnancy Taught Me About Being Pro-Choice 

"Expecting Better": Asking the Right Questions About Pregnancy 

Don't You Think If It Was Possible To Re-Implant Ectopic Pregnancies, We Would Already Be Doing That?

"Life's Work" (read this book and become even more pro-choice) 

Why I Am Pro-Choice 

On Gynecologists and Angry Turtles 

Boundaries With Dentists

Doctors (part 3 of Autism & Teaching Kids to Protect Themselves)

"Afraid of the Doctor" (I read this book because I have medical trauma) 

I Don't Want My Baby To Be "Brave"

Blogaround

1. RIP Tony Campolo (1935-2024) (November 20) "It’s Friday, but Sunday’s coming."

2. Journal Club: The Bedroom and the Laboratory (November 20) "This chapter discusses some of the problems with the methodologies used in sex therapy, and the clinical study of sexuality." This was really eye-opening to me. I had always assumed sexology was about getting to the bottom of the grand mystery of why people like to have their partner do things to their genitals. Turns out it's not. Turns out it's the same confusing concepts of "how do I increase my sex drive" etc.

3. D&D Combinatorics (November 22) Love this xkcd.

4. House passes bill that would allow Treasury to strip nonprofits of tax-exempt status (November 21, via) "The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would authorize the treasury secretary to designate nonprofit organizations as supporters of terrorism and strip them of tax-exempt status." This is worrying.

5. The Adult Vaccine Assessment Tool (via) The CDC has a little interactive tool which can recommend vaccines you may need. Cool!

6. Sarah McBride And The Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Criticism (November 24) "If McBride is caving in fear (and Yr Wonkette does not think she is), that’s not McBride’s fault. That’s the fault of 200 House Dems and 200 million Americans who oppose anti-trans bullying and could choose to step up (or step up more) but don’t."

So the story here is that Sarah McBride is the first trans person to be elected to Congress, and the Republican members of Congress are being weird about it and making rules that she can't use the women's bathrooms because she counts as a man. McBride responded by saying she will follow the rules; her intention is not to get involved in that drama but to do the work that her constituents elected her for.

Some trans people and allies have criticized McBride for not fighting back. (See this post from Erin Reed.) The post I'm linking here is from Crip Dyke, who says it's NOT COOL that people are criticising McBride for this.

Yes- she is the first trans Congress person, she is going to have to deal with a lot of this kind of bigotry, and you can't expect her to respond in whatever way *you* think a perfect activist would respond. She's just 1 person. It's not fair to put all that on her. Really, this is a moment where allies need to step up and take a stand against the bigots, rather than expecting McBride to do that all by herself.

Also, initially when I read McBride's statement that she would "follow the rules as outlined", I took that to mean she would use the men's bathroom (and maybe this would be a form of protest- everyone would see how ridiculous it was that she is forced to use the men's bathroom). But then after reading Erin Reed's article, I thought maybe trans people don't really consider that a real option because of the worry of being harassed in the bathroom, and actually this means McBride is gonna have to walk all the way to wherever the gender-neutral bathroom is, and it will be a huge inconvenience for her and won't affect the Republican bigots at all. But then Crip Dyke's article talked about getting a bunch of trans people together to protest by using the bathroom the bigots apparently want them to use. So. It could go either way I guess.

7. The Sanitary Pad Scandal Causing Uproar on Chinese Social Media (November 26) "In one clip, an influencer measures the lengths of the absorbent pads inside products made by leading Chinese brands including ABC, Sofy, and Space 7, and compares them with the product sizes listed on the packaging, which refer to the total pad lengths." 

Here's something really interesting about China: The lengths of pads (in cm or mm) are very explicitly advertised. Like it will be right there as part of the product name on the packaging. Zero effort is required to see "oh these pads are 25 cm, these pads are 29 cm" and so on. When you buy pads in the US... in the US I never thought about the length in inches or cm. (Assuming nothing has changed since I bought pads in the US a decade ago.) You have "long" or "super long", or you have "day" vs "night" with "night" being designed to go much farther in the back- but does anyone ever think about "well how many inches is that?" I'm sure you could find it in the fine print on the packaging in the US, but it's not big and obvious like in China.

Blogaround

1. You Can Buy A Malaria Net (November 7) "My ability to buy a bednet isn’t dependent on the behavior of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I can buy a bednet even if Joe Biden waited too long to drop out of the race, or the Kamala Harris campaign was too risk-averse, or the Democratic Party elites need to do a better job of disciplining their base. Buying a bednet in no way requires appeasing the Americans with the most confused, ignorant, incoherent, and self-contradictory beliefs, otherwise known as 'swing voters.'"

2. Steps For Transgender People Preparing For Federal Crackdowns Under Trump (November 12)

Also from Erin Reed: Opinion: The Trans Sports Attacks Were Never About Sports (November 16) "But by the end of 2023, the reality was clear: every state that passed a transgender sports ban went on to enact some of the most draconian anti-trans laws in history."

3. The 5Ds of Bystander Intervention (via) 

4. Elon Musk is sued over $1 million election giveaway (November 6) 

5. Sub-Radio - Bi Bi Bi (2023)

6. redbeardace says sex is like "bins at the Goodwill Outlet" and I love this analogy.

7. Harris lost the war of “ambient information” (November 18) "That’s how you wind up with a result like this: Harris won handily among people who were paying attention, but got clobbered among voters who just 'knew things' without checking them out."

Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I

King David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant. Image source.

I've been reading Wilda Gafney's book "Womanist Midrash," and it's got me thinking about the story of Michal, in the bible. Let's talk about Michal.

Specifically, I want to talk about the scene where Michal judges David for how he worships God. But, "Womanist Midrash" has made me realize we can't just look at that 1 passage by itself. We need the whole history between David and Michal, the way he treated her. So here it is:

• Michal was one of Saul's daughters. Saul was chosen by God to be the king, but later God rejected him and chose David instead. So you've got this awkward period of time where Saul is still the king, but David has God's promise that someday he'll be king, and there's conflict between Saul and David because of that.
• Anyway, Saul sees that his daughter Michal loves David, so Saul tells David he can marry her, and the bride-price is 100 Philistine foreskins (wtf). Saul hopes that maybe David will die in battle fighting the Philistines. But David succeeds and comes back with 200 Philistine foreskins (WTF). So he and Michal are married.
• Then Saul decides to kill David. He sends men to David's house. Michal helps David escape out of the window, and she lies to the men, saving David's life.
• While David is on the run, he marries a few other women: Abagail and Ahinoam. Saul ends up giving Michal in marriage to another man, Paltiel.
• Oh and at some point David married 4 additional women: Maakah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah.
• Years later, after Saul dies, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth becomes king. There is conflict between David's supporters and Ish-Bosheth's supporters. Finally, Abner (who was originally on Saul's side) comes to David to negotiate how to make David king. One of David's conditions is that Michal comes back to him. So, she is forcibly taken from her husband Paltiel, who follows after her, crying, until Abner tells him to give up and go home.
• Even though David and Michal were "together" again, it seems he wasn't having sex with her, or acting like a husband at all really. We can infer this because he's having lots of babies with his other wives, but none with Michal.
• And then, after all this, we come to the scene where Michal criticizes David for how he worships God. Now, after establishing all this history, we can talk about that.

2 Samuel 6:12-23

Now King David was told, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-Edom and everything he has, because of the ark of God.” So David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. When those who were carrying the ark of the Lord had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart.

They brought the ark of the Lord and set it in its place inside the tent that David had pitched for it, and David sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings before the Lord. After he had finished sacrificing the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord Almighty. Then he gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins to each person in the whole crowd of Israelites, both men and women. And all the people went to their homes.

When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, “How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!”

David said to Michal, “It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel—I will celebrate before the Lord. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.”

And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

Back when I was a good evangelical, "on fire for God," I loved this passage. I danced at church when we sang worship songs, and I had complicated feelings about it... I felt good, I loved God and wanted to express it in that way, but I also felt very self-conscious and kinda embarrassed. What if everyone is looking at me and thinking I'm weird? What if I'm bad at dancing? What if this is just super awkward?

I always heard Christians say "worship is just you and God." Meaning, we shouldn't care what people think. We should just repress those feelings of embarrassment; all that matters is that in God's eyes, you're genuinely expressing your worship towards Them.

And I truly believed that was the ideal. I strove to worship God in all the big wild ways I wanted to, and to repress my fears that I was being weird and people were judging me. This passage about David was an inspiration to me. The way I understood it, David was being a role model of what worship should be like, dancing in the streets without caring about how weird he looked, and Michal was being a wet blanket and judging him. She was in the wrong, and he told her so. He even told her "I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes." That verse was one of my favorites. It's all about expressing our love for God, I thought, regardless of what other people think.

(There's even a song about it, "Undignified" by David Crowder Band.)

But now that I'm reading "Womanist Midrash," which has a section on Michal, tying together all these events from her life, giving the reader a clear picture of how David and Saul mistreated her throughout her life, now I'm seeing 2 Samuel 6 completely differently.

Now I see it like this:

When Michal judged David for how he worshiped God, it wasn't about "wow you look so weird, dancing in the streets in your underwear, you should feel embarrassed about that."

Instead, her feelings were more like this: "You love God? You love God? After what you did to me, you have the audacity to go out there in public and act like you're just so wholeheartedly devoted to God? Come on."

She had loved him. She saved his life. And he used her as a political pawn in his quest to become king. (Both David and Saul used her in their struggle for power.) He tore her away from her husband, purely as a symbol of his dominance over the house of Saul, and then he didn't even seem to want her as a wife. Just the status, no actual relationship.

You can understand how, if someone treats you like that, and then they're like "I LOVE GOD SO MUCH, I SIMPLY MUST DANCE," you might hate them.

It's like the apostle John says in 1 John 4:20, "For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." David treats Michal this badly, and then he's all excited about worshipping God- no. Michal doesn't buy it.

It's like Jesus said in Matthew 5:23-24, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift." I remember reading that long ago, reading it as Here Are The Rules For How To Worship Correctly. The hoops that God has arbitrarily set up for us to jump through to get our worship to "count." But wait a minute, maybe it's not about that at all. Maybe Jesus is saying, if you've wronged someone, you need to go make it right, and that's a higher priority than coming to church to participate in "worship."

Maybe Jesus is saying, your relationships with other people have to come first, before your relationship with God. It's not "just you and God."

I think of Michal looking out her window at the way David performed his worship in front of everybody, playing the part of "a man after God's own heart," and I think of sexual abuse coverups in the modern church. Victims are told that they shouldn't speak up, because their abuser is such a good man of God, doing great things for God's kingdom, and to tell the truth about their abuse would [supposedly] be going against God's work.

She saw David dancing, and "despised him in her heart." We see an echo in the words of God, in Amos 5:21-24,

I hate, I despise your religious festivals;

    your assemblies are a stench to me.

Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,

    I will not accept them.

Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,

    I will have no regard for them.

Away with the noise of your songs!

    I will not listen to the music of your harps.

But let justice roll on like a river,

    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Michal was right.

Let justice roll like a river. And after that, you can dance for God.

---

Posts about the book "Womanist Midrash" by Wilda C. Gafney:

Womanist Midrash 
The Slavery We Ignore in the Book of Exodus 
The Second-Worst Bible Story 
Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I
Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?

---

Related:

Why I Don't Want to be at a "Revival"

The things I've never let myself say about worship 

"You Weren't There, the Night Jesus Found Me" 

For Rizpah (or, a post about human sacrifice in the bible)

Roundup of Vaginismus Posts

Machinery with tight bolts. Image source.

The topic of the October/November 2024 Carnival of Aces is "sexual healthcare." I've blogged a lot about my own experiences with vaginismus, so now I'm gathering the best ones into a convenient list. Here they are:

How Pregnancy and Childbirth Changed My Asexuality (or, actually, A Post About Vaginismus)

On Gynecologists and Angry Turtles

That happened to me too 

Separating Vaginismus From Asexuality

Sea Monsters on Land, and My Life With Vaginismus

Vaginismus Is Not A Problem, In And Of Itself 

When the Teacher Says, "Don't Look at Your Report Card" 

So this is new

Blogaround

1. Do not obey in advance (November 9) Yes, good advice. I think right now people are feeling like, the orange antichrist won and he'll have the power to actually implement all the bad ideas he campaigned on. And, yes, maybe, but he'll have to do a lot of work to get there- maybe his people will be incompetent. Let's hope for that. Don't act like he's already done it. Don't help him along.

2. Links to donate to help Palestine: Palestine Children's Relief Fund and American Near East Refugee Aid 

3. This Was Always Going To Be A Generational Fight For Transgender People (November 7) "To those who feel hopeless—don’t. The story didn’t end in 2004. Obama would eventually go on to champion gay rights, and public opinion shifted significantly over the next decade. Allies stood by gay people and grew in number, helping to foster broader acceptance. Anti-gay policy platforms slowly but surely became positions held only by the most fundamentalist religious politicians."

4. Number Shortage (November 8) Lolllll

5. We Fell For The Oldest Lie On The Internet (October 29, 13-minute video from Kurzgesagt) Love this! It's a video about tracking down the source for the "science fun fact" that the total length of all blood vessels in a person's body is 100,000 km.

6. She Helped a Survivor. Now She Is One. (October 25) "One thing that struck me repeatedly in this is that some level of fact-checking would have debunked some of these claims much earlier, if someone had had the presence of mind to attend to them (I dearly wish Abby had simply taken a medicine vial out of the trash and photographed the label — Abby does too). But these claims weren’t fact-checked, because to investigate the belief that someone you love isn’t telling you the truth is incredibly frightening. They weren’t fact-checked because the people who knew the facts were exhausted, caring for a newborn, toddler, and adult. They weren’t sleeping. They were largely isolated from others and had been pressured by someone they cared about deeply not to tell anyone what was happening in their home. They didn’t just do it out of fear of the next blow-up, and exhaustion. They did it out of love. They wanted this woman who they cared about to be happy and safe."

Very long post from Laura Robinson about Hannah-Kate Williams (a survivor of child abuse) and Abby Osborne, who opened her home to Williams and helped her with medical care and paid thousands and thousands of dollars for Williams' expenses- Abby has now come forward to say that Williams was dishonest and manipulative and all of this has been very harmful to Abby and her family. 

It's important to be honest about stories like this. Simplistically, we want Williams to be on the "good" side because she's an abuse survivor and she's involved in legal advocacy to hold the Southern Baptist Convention accountable for that. And so, we feel like we're not "supposed" to say anything bad about her. That's messed up.

7. Human Nature, Hope & Ice Cream (November 9, 11-minute video) A video from Pop Culture Detective making the case that it's NOT true that human nature is basically evil.

8. Two kinds of LLM hallucinations (November 13) "It’s not just about models saying something wrong, it’s about the way they say it. People are used to expressing some degree of uncertainty when they feel uncertain, and used to picking up uncertainty in other people. AI models often lack these signs of uncertainty, and this can be a problem in natural conversation. However, this subject is not discussed at all in the review, and so it appears not to be a major research area."

9. The US Is a Civic Desert. To Survive, the Democratic Party Needs to Transform Itself. (November 11) Posting this here because wow I've never heard of anything like this before. Imagine a world where a political party is manifested as a local group of real-life people who meet up and get to know each other, and support each other.

10. How Originalism Ate the Law (May 8, via) "They understand intuitively that while public opinion favors reproductive freedom and sensible gun regulations and the right to vote, the MAGA faction of the Supreme Court has found a doctrinal party trick to ensure that nobody can have any of those things because they weren’t protected at the founding or at the time of the Reconstruction Amendments, or whichever point of history the high court deems relevant (it varies)."

And I'm noticing some interesting parallels between "originalism" and how evangelicals read the bible.