Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Changes in "Law"
I've been reading a lot about Mormon church history, from kind of an external kind of anthropological point of view. It's so interesting to me how the Church today emphasizes certain things and totally ignores other parts of our recent history. Like polygamy. That's one of those interesting laws of God that seem to change depending on the situation and people. Abraham (Bible), be polygamist, Jacob (Book of Mormon) don't be polygamist. Joseph Smith be polygamist, Wilford Wodruff don't be polygamist. Or murder. Nephi kill Laben, 'Thou shalt not kill', Abraham sacrifice your son. And these aren't small, inconsequential laws to be brushed aside, but rather huge parts of the human experience.
Don't eat this, don't say that, say this, wear this, don't wear that, live here don't live there.... there is no end to the contradictory and consistent inconsistency of "God's" laws. Biblicaly, certain laws are applied only to certain groups of people, the priests, women, Jews, Christians, or non-believers. For example, the Children of Israel's extermination of the inhabitants of Israel, the Crusades: "God's" call to massacre non-believers, or Paul's anti-woman rants about their hair, speaking in public, etc.
Now, the only reasonable explanation for this situation is that these laws are not being transferred directly from God to men, but rather involve men's use the name of God to justify and provide legitimacy for their own personal motives and gain. Those who win the war rewrite history to their own desires.There is no fundamental truth or immovable perfect Law in these type of situation.
In fact, that is one of Christ's most important talking points in the New Testament*, that he is come to fulfill the Law. The Law is, in humanity, the ultimate impossibility. It is as simple as that. We are "fallen", imperfect on an exam which demands absolute perfection and nothing less. And we, as imperfect being,s have no right to judge any other human being by our subjective standards.
Now I'm not speaking in terms of personal spirituality, but rather enormous social movements. For example, for thousands of years the face given to God was the face created by ancient Greeks as Zeus, one of their polytheistic gods. A religion that borrows so much from heretics, and yet has the audacity to vilify and condemn those very groups from which they borrowed, that is my definition of morally reprehensible.
And yet, we are often so closed minded today, defining Christianity, defining "truth", daring to put words into the mouth of God. We so often become the very Pharisees, the religious "elites", that Christ so often chastised. We have put truth in a box, defined it, measured it, worshiped it. And any idea or practice that does not fit in that little box is violently cast off as false doctrine, it's adherents demoted to sinners.
Recently the Mormon church has altered their missionary program, implementing new policies, creating new opportunities, changing the age requirements. This is a big change. This last year also saw the first woman praying in General Conference (the biannual worldwide broadcast). I strongly believe that the church must continue to change it's practices, it's culture, it's rules, even it's Laws to stay relevant and provide spiritual nourishment for it's members. By stubbornly holding onto church tradition, faith in the important things is threatened. I don't believe the church is perfect. Or as we Mormons would say "I don't believe the church is true". This church, really any church is a group of people attempting to enforce codes of behavior and a system of belief. Which is, I believe, exactly what Christ taught against in the New Testament.
*-This is all according to the translators, clergy and those in political and religious power, of course. The Bible as we know it today is a mishmash of different writer's ideas, editor's revisions and translator's changes. Because we have absolutely no idea what this man called Jesus actually said. "His" words have been used by mass murderers, rapists, the vilest dregs of humanity to justify their actions.
Friday, September 20, 2013
A Moment of Revelation
So I've had a dramatic "ah-hah!" moment this week. I realized something about myself that has influenced everything in my entire cognitive life. I realized that I have been socialized my entire life to hate femininity.
My mother has always been a proud tomboy. She has always been a proponent of the "natural look", her friends growing up were boys, she had two brothers and a very strong father figure. She instilled a strong "protestant" work ethic in me (somehow my five brothers and sisters completely missed that), she taught me a lot about sacrifice, about denial of self.
When I started going through puberty, my mother didn't seem to have any frame of reference with which to empathize with my physical and emotional frustrations. My mother never experienced the negative monthly physical symptoms of being female. She never taught me how to be a "woman", but instead belittled and criticized my feeble independent attempts at growing up. And it is only recently that I've realized that I have repressed and illegitimized feelings, emotions and realities that I couldn't understand and that my parents did not help me to understand, issues that have become more and more evident and problematic. I've always been labeled "overly emotional", because I've never been taught how to express my feelings. My attempts were quickly shut-down, I was told that I was over-reacting, and that my emotions were inappropriate. I quickly learned to hide my feelings, my emotions, my desires, because a "good girl" does not make a fuss, but always sacrifices and focuses more on others' needs and feelings. (This is classic Jungian Psychology's Epoch II ego)
From all of this, I learned that femininity was looked down on, was inferior to my Mother's more masculine traits and ideals. Women who spent time and effort on their appearance were self-centered, vain and pathetic. And only today, in a moment of shear revelation, I was looking in the mirror, getting ready for work, applying eye shadow, and it hit me. Why is there a moral judgement to this act? Why am I afraid to own the fact that I wear makeup? I'll be honest, even now, writing these words is difficult for me, so ingrained in me is this socialized belief. I am so afraid of my own femininity because I have been taught to see those characteristics of the weak, of the pathetic. Which is absolutely ridiculous!!! The five minutes I spend applying product to my face does not make me a morally good or bad person.
Women are expected to look a certain way naturally, and when they don't measure up, they go to great lengths to disguise their "faults", lacking qualities and inability to measure up. For me this started for me with my eyebrows in the 6th grade. For many women this accelerates to plastic surgery, painful procedures and thousands of dollars. The millions of products created, the entire corporate industries built around the assumption that natural appearance is not enough to satisfy the demands of 'beauty". Why? Why do we allow ourselves to be put through this self-esteem killer?
And why has the masculine so overpowered our culture, to make every aspect of femininity be seen as pathetic and demeaning? The insults we use are feminine traits: "you're such a girl!", "grow a pair!", etc. Even women are taught to hate women, I know I was. There are definitely misogynist women as well as feminist men. I think this is also where the concept of a "mean girl" comes from. This is why women are seen as "catty" because everything they have been exposed to and socialized with screams that feminine traits (empathetic, dependent, submissive) are not to be desired, but masculine traits (independent, assertive, competitive) give the owner social, economic and personal success.
I'm speaking here in terms of feminine and masculine qualities, not biological gender. There is such variety in people, it is and should be impossible to strictly define people by their gender. Any sort of moral judgement because of masculine or feminine qualities is an embarrassment to the society which produced such a closed-minded and intolerant individual.
I also realized that some of my issues with my current job have been the result of my own personal intolerance for feminine traits and their place in society. I currently have a position where much of my time is spent sitting at a front desk greeting people. And for some reason this has frustrated me so much. I've felt stifled and angry because I've felt like I had contributions to make, but I was not being allowed to make them. While sitting at that desk today, I had a flash of a memory from a Mad Men episode. In this episode the "girl" who sits at the front desk is talking about how the management doesn't let her read books, because it gives customers the wrong impression (i.e. that she has a brain and could use it). Her job was to sit at that desk, answer the phone and look nice. And I've projected my anti-feminine socialization onto my job, which I feel is much like this 1950's secretary situation. Subconsciously I've equated my job with woman's work, and as a result viewed it as unimportant and pathetic. Which has caused psychological frustration and dissonance because I don't want to be unimportant and pathetic. The reality is that it's just a job, whomever it is done by and once again there is no moral judgement.
I know I'm not the first person to have this moment of revelation, but it was such an over powering moment to realize that my entire life has been colored by this perception. It was definitely a day in which:
My mother has always been a proud tomboy. She has always been a proponent of the "natural look", her friends growing up were boys, she had two brothers and a very strong father figure. She instilled a strong "protestant" work ethic in me (somehow my five brothers and sisters completely missed that), she taught me a lot about sacrifice, about denial of self.
When I started going through puberty, my mother didn't seem to have any frame of reference with which to empathize with my physical and emotional frustrations. My mother never experienced the negative monthly physical symptoms of being female. She never taught me how to be a "woman", but instead belittled and criticized my feeble independent attempts at growing up. And it is only recently that I've realized that I have repressed and illegitimized feelings, emotions and realities that I couldn't understand and that my parents did not help me to understand, issues that have become more and more evident and problematic. I've always been labeled "overly emotional", because I've never been taught how to express my feelings. My attempts were quickly shut-down, I was told that I was over-reacting, and that my emotions were inappropriate. I quickly learned to hide my feelings, my emotions, my desires, because a "good girl" does not make a fuss, but always sacrifices and focuses more on others' needs and feelings. (This is classic Jungian Psychology's Epoch II ego)
From all of this, I learned that femininity was looked down on, was inferior to my Mother's more masculine traits and ideals. Women who spent time and effort on their appearance were self-centered, vain and pathetic. And only today, in a moment of shear revelation, I was looking in the mirror, getting ready for work, applying eye shadow, and it hit me. Why is there a moral judgement to this act? Why am I afraid to own the fact that I wear makeup? I'll be honest, even now, writing these words is difficult for me, so ingrained in me is this socialized belief. I am so afraid of my own femininity because I have been taught to see those characteristics of the weak, of the pathetic. Which is absolutely ridiculous!!! The five minutes I spend applying product to my face does not make me a morally good or bad person.
Women are expected to look a certain way naturally, and when they don't measure up, they go to great lengths to disguise their "faults", lacking qualities and inability to measure up. For me this started for me with my eyebrows in the 6th grade. For many women this accelerates to plastic surgery, painful procedures and thousands of dollars. The millions of products created, the entire corporate industries built around the assumption that natural appearance is not enough to satisfy the demands of 'beauty". Why? Why do we allow ourselves to be put through this self-esteem killer?
And why has the masculine so overpowered our culture, to make every aspect of femininity be seen as pathetic and demeaning? The insults we use are feminine traits: "you're such a girl!", "grow a pair!", etc. Even women are taught to hate women, I know I was. There are definitely misogynist women as well as feminist men. I think this is also where the concept of a "mean girl" comes from. This is why women are seen as "catty" because everything they have been exposed to and socialized with screams that feminine traits (empathetic, dependent, submissive) are not to be desired, but masculine traits (independent, assertive, competitive) give the owner social, economic and personal success.
I'm speaking here in terms of feminine and masculine qualities, not biological gender. There is such variety in people, it is and should be impossible to strictly define people by their gender. Any sort of moral judgement because of masculine or feminine qualities is an embarrassment to the society which produced such a closed-minded and intolerant individual.
I also realized that some of my issues with my current job have been the result of my own personal intolerance for feminine traits and their place in society. I currently have a position where much of my time is spent sitting at a front desk greeting people. And for some reason this has frustrated me so much. I've felt stifled and angry because I've felt like I had contributions to make, but I was not being allowed to make them. While sitting at that desk today, I had a flash of a memory from a Mad Men episode. In this episode the "girl" who sits at the front desk is talking about how the management doesn't let her read books, because it gives customers the wrong impression (i.e. that she has a brain and could use it). Her job was to sit at that desk, answer the phone and look nice. And I've projected my anti-feminine socialization onto my job, which I feel is much like this 1950's secretary situation. Subconsciously I've equated my job with woman's work, and as a result viewed it as unimportant and pathetic. Which has caused psychological frustration and dissonance because I don't want to be unimportant and pathetic. The reality is that it's just a job, whomever it is done by and once again there is no moral judgement.
I know I'm not the first person to have this moment of revelation, but it was such an over powering moment to realize that my entire life has been colored by this perception. It was definitely a day in which:
Stay tuned for .....
Changes in Religious Law....
next time on Adventures in Time and Space!
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Adventures in Violation of Religious Norms
Note: In our church after you are given a "calling" (responsibility), during the the main service you are "sustained", the members of the congregation raise their right hand in support of the calling.
Today during our main church service (sacrament meeting) during the sustainings, a little boy raised his hand after the, "if there are any opposed, please manifest it". Of course, the bishopric member who was conducting didn't even look up and didn't even notice.
I always thought this process was kind of ridiculous. Historically, the sustaining process was a democratic method within the church. But now it is just a relic of another time and place. I have never seen anyone seriously raise their hand and oppose a calling. This is another example of how members of the church have relinquished any active voice in their church. We are all passive sheep, following anyone who is placed in authority above us.
But, back to the little boy. The most telling part of the interaction was the little boy's mother's reaction. She violently grabbed her son's arm, forcing it down and began to furiously whisper, presumably chastising him for daring to violate the social structure and contract in which no one EVER opposes a calling. That is akin to outright apostasy! Her reaction is huge evidence of the importance of conformity within the church. Those who act, dress or speak inappropriately must be educated and socialized to conform. I'm picturing the recent convert who comes to church in their jeans, who prays and shares their beliefs using non-Mormon language. We have a very strict codes and scripts: men in ties, women in dresses, using 'appropriate' language, "I'd like to bear my testimony.... ", "I know the church is true....", "We thank thee for this beautiful day...", "Would someone volunteer to say the prayer?..." And so on.
I don't believe that this is a church that Christ would align himself with. I often heard, 'People aren't perfect, but the church is perfect.' But I sincerely disagree. This church has been bureaucratically overhauled, correlated, and become a soulless machine rolling forward, crushing individuality and speculation.
We have become victims of the attempts of leaders to mold historical events into theology. For example, the structure of a first presidency. Our church is organized with a "prophet" (side note: why do we call him a president? Because he is the head of a corporation. That is what our church has evolved into, a corporation!), and two counselors. This structure is seen in local authority, with Stake Presidents and two counselors, Bishops and two counselors, Deacon's Quorum Presidents and two counselors, etc. We are so in love with the symmetry and simplicity of this "presidency" that leaders have tried projecting it back historically. The scene in Exodus 17 when Moses must keep his arms lifted so that the Israelite can win the battle against Amalek is cited as evidence of a "presidency", with Moses as the prophet and Aaron and Hur as his counselors. Peter, James and John are cited as the New Testament equivalent.
Why is it that we bear testimony that "the church is true"? I believe that any church is a man made social structure with the attempts at social control. Ideally this is by sincere, benign and humble leaders sincerely attempting to help people in their lives. But power corrupts, especially religious power as seen historically. I guess my take-away from all of this is that I want more people to critically analyze and research, to be active participants, not just accepting things because "that is the way things are, that's the way they've always been". Because more often than not, acceptance perpetrates unreliable myth.
Today during our main church service (sacrament meeting) during the sustainings, a little boy raised his hand after the, "if there are any opposed, please manifest it". Of course, the bishopric member who was conducting didn't even look up and didn't even notice.
I always thought this process was kind of ridiculous. Historically, the sustaining process was a democratic method within the church. But now it is just a relic of another time and place. I have never seen anyone seriously raise their hand and oppose a calling. This is another example of how members of the church have relinquished any active voice in their church. We are all passive sheep, following anyone who is placed in authority above us.
But, back to the little boy. The most telling part of the interaction was the little boy's mother's reaction. She violently grabbed her son's arm, forcing it down and began to furiously whisper, presumably chastising him for daring to violate the social structure and contract in which no one EVER opposes a calling. That is akin to outright apostasy! Her reaction is huge evidence of the importance of conformity within the church. Those who act, dress or speak inappropriately must be educated and socialized to conform. I'm picturing the recent convert who comes to church in their jeans, who prays and shares their beliefs using non-Mormon language. We have a very strict codes and scripts: men in ties, women in dresses, using 'appropriate' language, "I'd like to bear my testimony.... ", "I know the church is true....", "We thank thee for this beautiful day...", "Would someone volunteer to say the prayer?..." And so on.
I don't believe that this is a church that Christ would align himself with. I often heard, 'People aren't perfect, but the church is perfect.' But I sincerely disagree. This church has been bureaucratically overhauled, correlated, and become a soulless machine rolling forward, crushing individuality and speculation.
We have become victims of the attempts of leaders to mold historical events into theology. For example, the structure of a first presidency. Our church is organized with a "prophet" (side note: why do we call him a president? Because he is the head of a corporation. That is what our church has evolved into, a corporation!), and two counselors. This structure is seen in local authority, with Stake Presidents and two counselors, Bishops and two counselors, Deacon's Quorum Presidents and two counselors, etc. We are so in love with the symmetry and simplicity of this "presidency" that leaders have tried projecting it back historically. The scene in Exodus 17 when Moses must keep his arms lifted so that the Israelite can win the battle against Amalek is cited as evidence of a "presidency", with Moses as the prophet and Aaron and Hur as his counselors. Peter, James and John are cited as the New Testament equivalent.
Why is it that we bear testimony that "the church is true"? I believe that any church is a man made social structure with the attempts at social control. Ideally this is by sincere, benign and humble leaders sincerely attempting to help people in their lives. But power corrupts, especially religious power as seen historically. I guess my take-away from all of this is that I want more people to critically analyze and research, to be active participants, not just accepting things because "that is the way things are, that's the way they've always been". Because more often than not, acceptance perpetrates unreliable myth.
The Male Gaze & Fem Cosplay
The Male Gaze is a concept in which every aspect of human existence is viewed from a male perspective. For example:
Defined by the male gaze, woman have lost their authentic voice. We don't have a predominant female gaze. Our holy books are written by men, our leaders are primarily men (politically, religiously, within the "family structure". Women are "help-meets", accessories to men. Women are taught to see themselves as men see them.
Fem Cosplay
In recent years, an activity called cosplay has become more popular. Cosplay is short for "costume play", an activity in which participants wear costumes and accessories to represent a specific character or idea from a work of fiction. Cosplay is often done at conventions, parties, and special events. There are so many options and freedom of expression in cosplay.
There are straight forward costumes of fictional characters:
Link from Legend of Zelda
There are mashups, like this:
Nothing says unlimited self-expression like a storm trooper/Minnie Mouse.
There are concept costumes, like this:
Which is a representation of:
The Tardis!
But one interesting bit of cosplay that has interested in me is Fem-Cosplay. This is when a cosplayer takes a a feminine approach to their costume, resulting in a Fem Captain America, a Fem Doctor, a Fem Darth Vader, and a Fem Han Solo.
This gender flipping of these classic characters are usually dramatically over-sexualized (follow the links above for examples) and Fem-Cosplay often deteriorates into a reference to a character + heels + boobs.
There are so many options for female cosplayers, with strong female characters in literature, science fiction and history, and yet they still feel the need to shed their female identity to participate in this activity. It is also interesting to note that there is no mainstream male equivalent. Men are not allowed to explore any aspect of femininity in this way. The gender double-standard strikes again.
There are also creative expressions of characters in an alternate style, such as steampunk also gives cosplayers the option to create alternate realities. One of my favorite examples of this is a Steampunk Star Trek Officer.
This cosplay has so many different levels. Star Trek was originally created in reference to traditional British and America Navy culture. The Steampunk version takes this post-modern version of a classic culture and turns it on it's head in a Industrial Revolution aesthetic.
Cosplay is a very interesting opportunity for self-expression. Shows likes Heros of Cosplay on the SyFy Channel have given voice to this new trend. Unfortunately, even cosplay has been subjected to the male gaze. Girls are still being socialized and educated that their value lies solely in their appearance.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
This week in Video Clips
It's my birthday! Thanks for the wishes, cards and gifts from friends! You are all great!
So, graduate school has started, it's the busiest season at the music store, and life is generally extremely hectic at the moment. So I decided to simply give you my weeks highs and lows in video clips. I hope you enjoy!
Awesome Ukulele Music!
This is Water
New Robo-Cop Trailer
Rigged Game
SOYLENT - Food? Or Not?
And Finally... Defined Lines:
A Feminist Parody of the uber-popular and disgusting Blurred Lines song
(Warning... Rough Language and Feminist Ideas.... Watch at your own risk!)
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Bella vs.Buffy
We all live in a culture, a culture which defines and labels members. Our individual cultures emphasize and promote certain activities, standards of beauty, dress styles, tell us what to aspire to become. We are also involved in various subcultures, religion, social groups, a local identity, a nationality. One cross-culturally consistent defining feature of humanity is our reliance on patriarchy to define women's roles and aspiration.
Bella, the victim
Buffy, the hero
For example in industrialized England, women were divided into to moral classes. (1) The virginal angel, hoisted onto a pedestal of untouchable perfection or (2) the whore, discarded and thrust down into the ditch. There were no other options for women.
When I taught Anthropology classes in university there was one lecture in which we would talk about zombies and vampires as cultural references. I always brought up classic novel Dracula, a novel full of commentary about women and their place in society. (All you Twilight Fans- Go read it!!!) In this embodiment, vampires symbolized foreign infection, a real concern of this burgeoning industrial age.
Much of the vampire myth in our western industrialized culture can be traced back to this first dramatization of Dracula, the father of all vampires.
When I taught Anthropology classes in university there was one lecture in which we would talk about zombies and vampires as cultural references. I always brought up classic novel Dracula, a novel full of commentary about women and their place in society. (All you Twilight Fans- Go read it!!!) In this embodiment, vampires symbolized foreign infection, a real concern of this burgeoning industrial age.
Much of the vampire myth in our western industrialized culture can be traced back to this first dramatization of Dracula, the father of all vampires.
Bella, the victim
I hate to even mention this deplorable assault on womanhood here, but in the "Twilight" series, the heroine is a girl named Bella. Bella is a teenage girl who dramatically becomes emotionally attached to a vampire whose name is Edward. Bella spends the entire series passively letting the people around her make decisions, letting others save her. Her entire defining characteristic is her complete and utter devotion to Edward (who stalks her, filled with potential violence).
Interestingly, these books were written by a member of my church. I think that it is very revealing that this is the type of relationship that a woman in my church would idealize.
Interestingly, these books were written by a member of my church. I think that it is very revealing that this is the type of relationship that a woman in my church would idealize.
Buffy, the hero
An alternative to the concept of women as a victim, is the empowered female hero, for example in the television drama "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Buffy is a girl who initially fits all of the stereotypical traits of an idealized high school girl. But when she is given the responsibility to protecting humankind from evil, she rises to the challenge becoming physically and emotionally strong, selfless, and powerful. She too falls in love with a vampire, but when humanity is threatened she puts aside her feelings and does her duty.
Buffy was created and written by Joss Wedon, one of my favorite people I've never met. Mr. Wedon has continually pushed boundaries by creating female characters who are multifaceted and powerful. His characters are of course not completely realistic, but in comparison to most portrayals of women he is light years ahead of the staus quo.
So if, Industrial England was worried about foreigners and changes in woman's place in society, as evidenced by the novel Dracula, what do the stories of Bella and Buffy say about twenty-first century America?
Buffy was created and written by Joss Wedon, one of my favorite people I've never met. Mr. Wedon has continually pushed boundaries by creating female characters who are multifaceted and powerful. His characters are of course not completely realistic, but in comparison to most portrayals of women he is light years ahead of the staus quo.
So if, Industrial England was worried about foreigners and changes in woman's place in society, as evidenced by the novel Dracula, what do the stories of Bella and Buffy say about twenty-first century America?
Friday, August 16, 2013
Race Relations
Racism... now there's a complicated and sensitive subject. I've been thinking a lot about racism in the past few months. I recently moved from a more suburban, heavily white inhabited area to a lower-income, heavily not-white inhabited area. And this has affected my comfort level.
Looking back, I (as a middle-class white girl) have been raised to fear and avoid: #1- people who look rough, who are obviously not of my social class, #2- people who have a different skin color than I, and #3- strange men. So the scruffy looking men of African descent in my new neighborhood have hit all three of these criteria. I've found myself automatically, without conscious thought, walking faster, not making eye contact and simply reacting to people who I don't know. People who have never given me any reason to mistrust them, simply on the basis of my past indoctrination. And I hate this part of me. I hate that I've been made to react this way to people around me.
Now there are multiple sources for this education. When I was a college student, I spent a summer in Israel, Egypt and Jordan and one of the most upsetting and scaring experiences I had involved the pre-trip orientation. The white men who were leading this trip spent hours telling us horror stories about pretty little white girls who had been accosted and had been taken advantage of. Their goal was to scare us into dressing and acting in ways that would not attract attention. After the orientation, I went home scared to death, not wanting to go on the trip. The big scary world had become very real.
I did go on the trip, and there were definitely situations were I did not feel safe because of first, my gender and second, my skin color. But did I feel unsafe because of actual circumstances or because I was programmed and preconditioned to feel that way? Either way, actual misogyny or socialized misinformation, I got the short end of the stick.
Despite all of this, it was a great trip and I was physically safe.
But even more involved and central to my understanding of human interaction has been the influence of my family. My mother has told me stories about how her grandmother was outrageously racist. My father is an interesting story in race relations. He grew up in California and went to high school in Hawaii, where he was one of the few white kids in a school predominately Polynesian. Apparently he experienced racism as a white minority in that situation. To this day, he is extremely sensitive to race relations, often taking offense when other groups accuse Caucasians of acting racist. He deeply believes that he, the middle class white man, is the victim in current United States culture and government.
Recently there was a cheerios commercial which caused a huge uproar because it portrayed a little girl with a white mother and a black father. I was amazed by the intense reactions of people to this commercial.
Within my feminist community, there has recently been a discussion about race within feminism. The idea that feminism focuses too much on the white female as opposed to other racial groups that experience misogyny in addition to racism, a double dose of prejudice and discrimination. I very much agree that non-white females deal with misogyny in different and often more challenging ways. In the same way, economic status affects a woman's ability to be successful in patriarchal society. So the reality is that the factors of gender, race, economic status are so intertwined and dependent on each other, making the conversation about any one of these inequality factors very complicated.
I feel like at this point I should say something very deep and resolute, shouting my solution to these world problems from the rooftop. But from a practical standpoint, I still haven't even gotten up the courage to talk to my neighbors at this point. Which is so stupid! I want to be that brave cosmopolitan, adventurous, uninhibited person. I don't want my socialized background to define me. I want to push boundaries. So how does a person overcome who society has made them?
(Wow... I went pretty existentialist there. Kind of Matrix, Brave New World and Farenheit 451 ish :)
Looking back, I (as a middle-class white girl) have been raised to fear and avoid: #1- people who look rough, who are obviously not of my social class, #2- people who have a different skin color than I, and #3- strange men. So the scruffy looking men of African descent in my new neighborhood have hit all three of these criteria. I've found myself automatically, without conscious thought, walking faster, not making eye contact and simply reacting to people who I don't know. People who have never given me any reason to mistrust them, simply on the basis of my past indoctrination. And I hate this part of me. I hate that I've been made to react this way to people around me.
Now there are multiple sources for this education. When I was a college student, I spent a summer in Israel, Egypt and Jordan and one of the most upsetting and scaring experiences I had involved the pre-trip orientation. The white men who were leading this trip spent hours telling us horror stories about pretty little white girls who had been accosted and had been taken advantage of. Their goal was to scare us into dressing and acting in ways that would not attract attention. After the orientation, I went home scared to death, not wanting to go on the trip. The big scary world had become very real.
I did go on the trip, and there were definitely situations were I did not feel safe because of first, my gender and second, my skin color. But did I feel unsafe because of actual circumstances or because I was programmed and preconditioned to feel that way? Either way, actual misogyny or socialized misinformation, I got the short end of the stick.
Despite all of this, it was a great trip and I was physically safe.
But even more involved and central to my understanding of human interaction has been the influence of my family. My mother has told me stories about how her grandmother was outrageously racist. My father is an interesting story in race relations. He grew up in California and went to high school in Hawaii, where he was one of the few white kids in a school predominately Polynesian. Apparently he experienced racism as a white minority in that situation. To this day, he is extremely sensitive to race relations, often taking offense when other groups accuse Caucasians of acting racist. He deeply believes that he, the middle class white man, is the victim in current United States culture and government.
Recently there was a cheerios commercial which caused a huge uproar because it portrayed a little girl with a white mother and a black father. I was amazed by the intense reactions of people to this commercial.
Within my feminist community, there has recently been a discussion about race within feminism. The idea that feminism focuses too much on the white female as opposed to other racial groups that experience misogyny in addition to racism, a double dose of prejudice and discrimination. I very much agree that non-white females deal with misogyny in different and often more challenging ways. In the same way, economic status affects a woman's ability to be successful in patriarchal society. So the reality is that the factors of gender, race, economic status are so intertwined and dependent on each other, making the conversation about any one of these inequality factors very complicated.
I feel like at this point I should say something very deep and resolute, shouting my solution to these world problems from the rooftop. But from a practical standpoint, I still haven't even gotten up the courage to talk to my neighbors at this point. Which is so stupid! I want to be that brave cosmopolitan, adventurous, uninhibited person. I don't want my socialized background to define me. I want to push boundaries. So how does a person overcome who society has made them?
(Wow... I went pretty existentialist there. Kind of Matrix, Brave New World and Farenheit 451 ish :)
Monday, August 12, 2013
The Twelfth Doctor
The 50th Anniversary of this show is happening in November. This is a show with multi-generational viewers, tribute bands, a Doctor Who Experience in Cardiff, spin-off shows and so much more.
So back to 12. Leading up to the announcement last week there was much speculation on who the new doctor would be. There were many of us who campaigned for a completely different kind of Doctor. The Doctor has always been a white man, ranging in age from 26-70. I personally very much wanted a female doctor. It has been established that time lords can change gender. They can certainly change race, skin color. So why is the Doctor always a white man? A female doctor, in the grand tradition of Joss Wedon's powerful female hero would give the show so many new avenues of plot and drama.
Or if that was too much scary feminist rhetoric (which I don't think it is), how about a Doctor of a different race? He is an alien for goodness sake! There are so many possibilities, why are the producers limiting themselves?
So, after much ado, the Twelfth Doctor has been revealed as Peter Capaldi, an older white man. He's not even ginger, as the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor wished to be. I really don't have a problem with Mr. Capaldi. I'm sure he will do a great job embodying the Doctor and everything he stands for. I've accepted the choice. But I can't help but wonder and wish that this amazing show, that embodies so much of my personal ideology, i.e. tolerance, acceptance, the realities of pain, consequences of our decisions, the possibility of adventure; a show that has broken so many boundaries, both social, technological, culturally. I just wish that this opportunity to be so relevant and progressive had been taken and run with.
Because, as we know, with the Doctor, there's an awful lot of running to do!
This just in: I'm not the only one who feels this way! See this!
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Faith Quest
I've always liked the idea of a vision quest, the Native America tradition of a young person going on a personalized adventure to discover their identity, their real self, receive guidance and purpose. This is a time of transition, discovery, exploration.
I recently read a post about the concept of a faith quest, which I think is a Christianized reflection of this type of transition. A faith quest is a proactive personal decision to determine what a person really believes, who they are in terms of the big picture and what their self-determined purpose will be. This type of self analysis takes dramatic courage, because it is so much easier to allow ourselves to live in the assumptions and status-quo of our circumstances. "To doubt what we think we know in order to explore and correct ourselves"
The issue that often arises when an individual embarks on a faith quest is the extreme and overblown reaction by family, friends and fellow church members. In extreme patriarchy (where the male figure is responsible for the family's or congregation's spiritual well-being), this reaction, in the guise of "concern", morphs into judgmental, often passive-aggressive emotional abuse. "Even a prayer or a blessing can be designed as a hurtful rebuke."
Why is a faith quest threatening to people? Especially the person undergoing the quest. Christianity and Mormonism in general have created such a negative and shaming narrative about doubt and faith exploration that an individual who is experiencing this type of quest is not only experiencing that process, but also the guilt and shame for being on this quest. The ideal fulfillment of this quest is a deeper understanding of self and place in a religion, a culture and broad society in general. "It can bring us into deeper trust and relationship to deity and each other". Doubt, or misunderstanding, the feeling that something isn't right.... isn't that a spiritual prompting? Why do we socially and emotionally penalize those who are attempting a faith quest?
We’re all on some sort of faith quest. "Rather than mark the path by transition or crisis, why not see the whole thing as a quest in making our way back to God?" I firmly believe that we all have different routes and paths in this quest. We all have different challenges and circumstances and no one has the right to judge another's path. We need to be allowed to change, to explore and transition without social sanctions and judgement.
Another reason why the idea of a faith quest resonates with me is that a faith quest also has an epic, exploratory kind of ring to it. Like Bilbo leaving the shire... Like Link leaving the Great Deku Tree... Like Merlin leaving the reef.... Like Captain Kirk beaming down to an unknown planet.... Like every episode of Doctor Who.... Every good story has this type of plot twist. Why should our reality be any different?
So, as with any vision quest, I don't know how my personal faith quest will conclude. As I try to be more self-aware, more patient and open to ideas, I have hope that I will discover my path, which I suspect will not be the same as any other.
I recently read a post about the concept of a faith quest, which I think is a Christianized reflection of this type of transition. A faith quest is a proactive personal decision to determine what a person really believes, who they are in terms of the big picture and what their self-determined purpose will be. This type of self analysis takes dramatic courage, because it is so much easier to allow ourselves to live in the assumptions and status-quo of our circumstances. "To doubt what we think we know in order to explore and correct ourselves"
The issue that often arises when an individual embarks on a faith quest is the extreme and overblown reaction by family, friends and fellow church members. In extreme patriarchy (where the male figure is responsible for the family's or congregation's spiritual well-being), this reaction, in the guise of "concern", morphs into judgmental, often passive-aggressive emotional abuse. "Even a prayer or a blessing can be designed as a hurtful rebuke."
Why is a faith quest threatening to people? Especially the person undergoing the quest. Christianity and Mormonism in general have created such a negative and shaming narrative about doubt and faith exploration that an individual who is experiencing this type of quest is not only experiencing that process, but also the guilt and shame for being on this quest. The ideal fulfillment of this quest is a deeper understanding of self and place in a religion, a culture and broad society in general. "It can bring us into deeper trust and relationship to deity and each other". Doubt, or misunderstanding, the feeling that something isn't right.... isn't that a spiritual prompting? Why do we socially and emotionally penalize those who are attempting a faith quest?
We’re all on some sort of faith quest. "Rather than mark the path by transition or crisis, why not see the whole thing as a quest in making our way back to God?" I firmly believe that we all have different routes and paths in this quest. We all have different challenges and circumstances and no one has the right to judge another's path. We need to be allowed to change, to explore and transition without social sanctions and judgement.
Another reason why the idea of a faith quest resonates with me is that a faith quest also has an epic, exploratory kind of ring to it. Like Bilbo leaving the shire... Like Link leaving the Great Deku Tree... Like Merlin leaving the reef.... Like Captain Kirk beaming down to an unknown planet.... Like every episode of Doctor Who.... Every good story has this type of plot twist. Why should our reality be any different?
So, as with any vision quest, I don't know how my personal faith quest will conclude. As I try to be more self-aware, more patient and open to ideas, I have hope that I will discover my path, which I suspect will not be the same as any other.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Ukulele Songs, Grad School and Dinosaurs-with-Tiny-Arms
I know I tend to rant and climb on a soap box, but I don't mean to always be negative. After reading through my last few posts, I decided I needed to share something more fluffy.... something light-hearted and fun. Then today I saw this:
Ukuleles are such happy, social instruments! I love it! I've been playing myself for a few years (The hipster in me must point out that I was into the ukulele way before everyone else rediscovered them!!!), but gotten more serious recently.
This is the ukulele I've been playing. His name is Cecil.
We are really getting along well!
We are really getting along well!
I'm also getting ready to start grad school next month..... Yippee!
Going to be studying library science, with an emphasis on archives.
Support your local library!
And finally, this gave me a nice chuckle this week:
Have a happy, marshmallow-filled, butterfly-attacking, chocolate-covered week!
Other Interesting Things I've read this week:
The Things We Are Prepared to Walk Away From
Why I Wouldn't Attend Pastor Steepek's Church
Feminism and the New Domesticity
Why I Wouldn't Attend Pastor Steepek's Church
Feminism and the New Domesticity
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Chivalry vs. Misogyny
A few days ago at work, a coworker and I were discussing a task, a task involving some physical effort. He made the comment, 'You shouldn't do it by yourself, you know... Because of chivalry.' I immediately responded, 'You mean misogyny!'
Does chivalry even exist? Or is it an invention by the male-centric structure of human culture to make subjugation more palatable? Let a man open a door for you, it's chivalry! Let a man pay for your meal/movie/entertainment, it's chivalry! This process teaches women, and especially young girls to not be independent, to rely on men, that they are unable to provide for themselves. It allows thought processes where a woman's place is at home, protected and reliant upon their man.
Can you imagine if the common dating methods were gender swapped? Most men I know would cringe at the thought of a woman paying!
When I've tried to discuss this idea with other women, I inevitably get some response to the effect, we could take care of ourselves but its important to make men feel needed and important. This is completely belittling any action taken by men, to the passive aggressive control of women. This is not a function of a healthy relationship!
I think that men and women should individually act in the best interest of each other, dividing tasks and repositioning according to ability and experience, not gender. There is nothing as frustrating to me, as not being allowed to do something simply because I was born with a certain genetic code.
Just to clarify, I'm not blaming men for acting 'chivalrous'. They are acting in noble, polite and according to how society teaches them to act. They are just as much victims in this gender-imposed mess as women. And they deal with and are negatively affected by misogyny as much as women.
Does chivalry even exist? Or is it an invention by the male-centric structure of human culture to make subjugation more palatable? Let a man open a door for you, it's chivalry! Let a man pay for your meal/movie/entertainment, it's chivalry! This process teaches women, and especially young girls to not be independent, to rely on men, that they are unable to provide for themselves. It allows thought processes where a woman's place is at home, protected and reliant upon their man.
Can you imagine if the common dating methods were gender swapped? Most men I know would cringe at the thought of a woman paying!
When I've tried to discuss this idea with other women, I inevitably get some response to the effect, we could take care of ourselves but its important to make men feel needed and important. This is completely belittling any action taken by men, to the passive aggressive control of women. This is not a function of a healthy relationship!
I think that men and women should individually act in the best interest of each other, dividing tasks and repositioning according to ability and experience, not gender. There is nothing as frustrating to me, as not being allowed to do something simply because I was born with a certain genetic code.
Just to clarify, I'm not blaming men for acting 'chivalrous'. They are acting in noble, polite and according to how society teaches them to act. They are just as much victims in this gender-imposed mess as women. And they deal with and are negatively affected by misogyny as much as women.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Modern Children of Israel
Disclaimer... The opinions expressed here are my own and not those of my employer, my church, my university, my family or my friends. These opinions will change from time to time... Here is today's rant.
I've been reading the Book of Matthew in the New Testament lately. I'm trying to get a new perspective on Christ and his gospel. Today, in Matthew 12, the thing that really stood out to me was how anti-establishmentary Christ was. This whole chapter is him breaking traditions and rules, upsetting people. He is consistently outwitting and dressing down members of the traditional religious community.
The Mormon Church is much like the Children of Israel in the Old Testament. They take great pride at being different. At living in the world but not of the world. In the days of David and Solomon, one of their greatest sins was polluting the purity of the community by marrying foreign wives. There was no proselyting, no invitation to join the "saints", but rather war and death over property rights. These people could not live together in peace because they were so intolerant. This also perfectly describes the Pharisees and traditional religious leaders, with whom Christ constantly is butting heads. Elder Oaks has discussed the importance of not tolerating anything but pure Mormon Christianity (here).
As a young woman, I took great pride in my long shorts, my dateless status and my refusal to participate in school dances or activities. I had more righteous, important things to do with my time, was my thought process. I went to seminary (a church class) at 6 AM every day, went to church services 3 hours on Sunday, church activities on Wednesday nights, dances occasionally. But, I'm not so sure that we are any different from the rest of world, especially the conservative Christian world. There are many other Christian groups that are just as self-righteous and sure that they, and only they, have the truth.
Any organization/establishment has to deal with the dilemma of "melting pot" vs. "mixed salad" in terms of culture, structure, organization, etc. America used to be seen as a melting pot, a place where people of all cultures could come together and discard their cultural identities to become America. The concept of a mixed salad is that people can and should retain their identities while interacting with and supporting the structure.
Just like any country or cultural group, religion has to deal with "melting" vs "mixing". Do we attempt to assimilate newcomers? Or do we respect their traditions and encourage them to maintain their identity? This is where my problems with missionary work come out. What right does any church have to come into someone's life and tell them that they are living incorrectly? Now, there are extremes, with drug abuse, alcoholism and other fundamentally detrimental behavior choices. But I think it takes a substantial amount of self-righteous moral superiority to tell Hawaiian women they are dressed immodestly, or African men that they need to wear white shirts and ties to church, or that quasi-traditional Protestant hymns are the only appropriate music for church, played on an organ. God is not only in those types of churches. I believe that many people feel the presence of God in different ways than three hours of church, listening to white-shirted men instill guilt in them.
Back to Matthew, why did there need to be an apostasy? We Mormons are taught that the gospel was taken from the earth after Christ's death because of the wickedness of the people. But if Christ established his perfect church, it should have stood the test of time. There are always wicked people on earth, but there are also always good innocent people. I propose that Christ didn't so much found a formal church, as debunk intolerance and religious superiority. He fought against the religious establishment. And the Mormon church has done the direct opposite, by building up a massive structure, a "pure" and "righteous" culture that people are expected to assimilate into to be a part of the "one true church". I remember the first time I saw pictures of the new conference center. I'll be honest, my first thought was of the great and spacious building discussed in the Book of Mormon, the embodiment of pride and sin.
The Church (yes, with a capitol "C") has grown so big and unwieldy that I feel it has lost touch with it's members. The combination of growth outside the US, political missteps and it's seeming refusal to allow women more substantial roles has made it a massive bureaucratic machine rolling on, intent on "melting" any violations from what it perceives as the norm. In other words, assimilation is your only righteous option. And after growing up in the church, it definitely is easier to just go with the flow, to accept the demands of the Church. I've taken real courage from my fellow bloggers, Young Mormon Feminists and Feminist Mormon Housewives. I am still trying to understand my relationship with religion, still trying on various ideologies and schools of thought. I don't have the answers yet, but I feel like I'm beginning to ask the questions.
I've been reading the Book of Matthew in the New Testament lately. I'm trying to get a new perspective on Christ and his gospel. Today, in Matthew 12, the thing that really stood out to me was how anti-establishmentary Christ was. This whole chapter is him breaking traditions and rules, upsetting people. He is consistently outwitting and dressing down members of the traditional religious community.
The Mormon Church is much like the Children of Israel in the Old Testament. They take great pride at being different. At living in the world but not of the world. In the days of David and Solomon, one of their greatest sins was polluting the purity of the community by marrying foreign wives. There was no proselyting, no invitation to join the "saints", but rather war and death over property rights. These people could not live together in peace because they were so intolerant. This also perfectly describes the Pharisees and traditional religious leaders, with whom Christ constantly is butting heads. Elder Oaks has discussed the importance of not tolerating anything but pure Mormon Christianity (here).
As a young woman, I took great pride in my long shorts, my dateless status and my refusal to participate in school dances or activities. I had more righteous, important things to do with my time, was my thought process. I went to seminary (a church class) at 6 AM every day, went to church services 3 hours on Sunday, church activities on Wednesday nights, dances occasionally. But, I'm not so sure that we are any different from the rest of world, especially the conservative Christian world. There are many other Christian groups that are just as self-righteous and sure that they, and only they, have the truth.
Any organization/establishment has to deal with the dilemma of "melting pot" vs. "mixed salad" in terms of culture, structure, organization, etc. America used to be seen as a melting pot, a place where people of all cultures could come together and discard their cultural identities to become America. The concept of a mixed salad is that people can and should retain their identities while interacting with and supporting the structure.
Just like any country or cultural group, religion has to deal with "melting" vs "mixing". Do we attempt to assimilate newcomers? Or do we respect their traditions and encourage them to maintain their identity? This is where my problems with missionary work come out. What right does any church have to come into someone's life and tell them that they are living incorrectly? Now, there are extremes, with drug abuse, alcoholism and other fundamentally detrimental behavior choices. But I think it takes a substantial amount of self-righteous moral superiority to tell Hawaiian women they are dressed immodestly, or African men that they need to wear white shirts and ties to church, or that quasi-traditional Protestant hymns are the only appropriate music for church, played on an organ. God is not only in those types of churches. I believe that many people feel the presence of God in different ways than three hours of church, listening to white-shirted men instill guilt in them.
Back to Matthew, why did there need to be an apostasy? We Mormons are taught that the gospel was taken from the earth after Christ's death because of the wickedness of the people. But if Christ established his perfect church, it should have stood the test of time. There are always wicked people on earth, but there are also always good innocent people. I propose that Christ didn't so much found a formal church, as debunk intolerance and religious superiority. He fought against the religious establishment. And the Mormon church has done the direct opposite, by building up a massive structure, a "pure" and "righteous" culture that people are expected to assimilate into to be a part of the "one true church". I remember the first time I saw pictures of the new conference center. I'll be honest, my first thought was of the great and spacious building discussed in the Book of Mormon, the embodiment of pride and sin.
The Church (yes, with a capitol "C") has grown so big and unwieldy that I feel it has lost touch with it's members. The combination of growth outside the US, political missteps and it's seeming refusal to allow women more substantial roles has made it a massive bureaucratic machine rolling on, intent on "melting" any violations from what it perceives as the norm. In other words, assimilation is your only righteous option. And after growing up in the church, it definitely is easier to just go with the flow, to accept the demands of the Church. I've taken real courage from my fellow bloggers, Young Mormon Feminists and Feminist Mormon Housewives. I am still trying to understand my relationship with religion, still trying on various ideologies and schools of thought. I don't have the answers yet, but I feel like I'm beginning to ask the questions.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
My encounters with the Modesty Police
Buckle up.... This is a rant that has been building for over ten years. Apologies for the length. (hehehe... you'll get the joke at the end)
I've been thinking a lot about 'modesty' lately. It was recently pointed out to me that modesty should not be about what you are wearing, but rather how you act no matter what you are wearing. In other words, "the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities". (Link) In my religion we have hijacked this word and made it synonymous with dress standards.
In my religious upbringing there are very strict dress codes and requirements. Now, dress and it's appropriateness is a cultural issue. It is not an eternal principle! It's not even a blanket issue for every member of our church, not even for every female member. I have also recently been thinking about the concept of 'slut shaming'. This involves shaming women into acting, dressing and behaving in "appropriate" ways. There are various levels and methods from comments by co-workers to being accosted in the street.
When I was twelve years old, I was a chubby kid with a very unfortunate mullet-like hair cut. I was very sheltered and innocent. In our church, at twelve children graduate from "Primary" and begin attending "Young Men" or "Young Women" classes. This is also when modesty indoctrination begins in the extreme.
So, there I was, a young girl, very excited to grow up and become one of the teenagers. I will never forget one summer day, I went to a church activity, all pumped up with righteous excitement. After being at the activity for a few minutes, I could tell there was some sort of problem going on. The leaders were gathered together whispering. Finally, one of them came over to me and informed me that my shorts were too short. And if I wanted stay and participate I would have to wear a mumu wrap. Now, just to clarify I was not wearing short shorts. I was wearing shorts that were maybe 2 inches above my knee. I've always had long legs and in my innocent twelve year old mind it never occurred to me that my shorts were inappropriate. My parents never said anything either. This was my first experience where I was defined by what I was wearing and shamed. And it worked! The other girls were appalled! After that night none of them ever dared wear anything that would subject them to such degradation. I was the only one in that group who ever had to wear that wrap.
Fast forward a few years. I was now about sixteen, moved to a different area. At this point I understood the concept of modesty. I knew that I had to cover myself because boys couldn't handle themselves. I accepted that and did my best to conform. I wore capri length pants, never shorts. I wore sleeves.
In my church, the teenagers have a dance every few months or so. It's a huge social event and dress to said event is always a big issue. That year, the local leaders had implemented the rule that not only did shoulders, knees and midriff need to be covered, but that capri length pants were not acceptable. A girl's options were either long pants or skirts. And at that point I simply threw up my hands and said, "I don't understand!" Capris were now considered immodest? Maybe I was having flash backs to the experience as a twelve year old, but I was so frustrated and angry, my Mom suggested that I avoid going to activities like this in the future.
Then at church one night, we had a panel discussion where we, "the youth" could ask our local leaders questions. I raised my hand, and asked "Why can't we wear capri pants to dances?" The leaders quickly bypassed my very sincere question, with some mumble about it being a more formal occasion. We are not talking about prom here, we are talking about a very low-key, in the gym, juvenile dance. This was just avoidance.
The Honor Code at the university I attended had extensive dress requirements, unfortunately with a self-righteous aspect of shaming. It is also blatantly biased towards infractions by women.There have been numerous experiences by women publicized lately which reveal the demeaning actions and humiliation encountered by women who have been singled out as violators. (One on Valentines' Day) As part of this Honor Code, every potential violation is investigated and the perpetrator is made to feel like they have taken advantage of the poor men around them, who are at the mercy of those around them. There was even an uproar about women wearing messenger bags, because it emphasized their womanly curves.
I'm sorry if my appearance offends you, my burka is on back-order! And in cultures where women wear burkas, their eyes are sexualized! There is no winning this battle!
All these rules do is shame women into believing that they are defined by their appearance. That who they are is not important, but the appearance that they present is the most important.
I'm also the first one to jump on my soap box about how lax and lazy our culture has become in their appearance. Visit any Walmart and look at the people in their pajamas, flip-flops or waistbands around their knees. But I'm not going to impose my appearance desires on anyone else or define women by the length of their clothing. I am a capable woman. I can be responsible for my thoughts and actions and I extend that same privilege to those around me.
I will not dress "sexier" for you, I will not "cover up" for you.
And that is the long and short of it.
I've been thinking a lot about 'modesty' lately. It was recently pointed out to me that modesty should not be about what you are wearing, but rather how you act no matter what you are wearing. In other words, "the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities". (Link) In my religion we have hijacked this word and made it synonymous with dress standards.
In my religious upbringing there are very strict dress codes and requirements. Now, dress and it's appropriateness is a cultural issue. It is not an eternal principle! It's not even a blanket issue for every member of our church, not even for every female member. I have also recently been thinking about the concept of 'slut shaming'. This involves shaming women into acting, dressing and behaving in "appropriate" ways. There are various levels and methods from comments by co-workers to being accosted in the street.
When I was twelve years old, I was a chubby kid with a very unfortunate mullet-like hair cut. I was very sheltered and innocent. In our church, at twelve children graduate from "Primary" and begin attending "Young Men" or "Young Women" classes. This is also when modesty indoctrination begins in the extreme.
So, there I was, a young girl, very excited to grow up and become one of the teenagers. I will never forget one summer day, I went to a church activity, all pumped up with righteous excitement. After being at the activity for a few minutes, I could tell there was some sort of problem going on. The leaders were gathered together whispering. Finally, one of them came over to me and informed me that my shorts were too short. And if I wanted stay and participate I would have to wear a mumu wrap. Now, just to clarify I was not wearing short shorts. I was wearing shorts that were maybe 2 inches above my knee. I've always had long legs and in my innocent twelve year old mind it never occurred to me that my shorts were inappropriate. My parents never said anything either. This was my first experience where I was defined by what I was wearing and shamed. And it worked! The other girls were appalled! After that night none of them ever dared wear anything that would subject them to such degradation. I was the only one in that group who ever had to wear that wrap.
Fast forward a few years. I was now about sixteen, moved to a different area. At this point I understood the concept of modesty. I knew that I had to cover myself because boys couldn't handle themselves. I accepted that and did my best to conform. I wore capri length pants, never shorts. I wore sleeves.
In my church, the teenagers have a dance every few months or so. It's a huge social event and dress to said event is always a big issue. That year, the local leaders had implemented the rule that not only did shoulders, knees and midriff need to be covered, but that capri length pants were not acceptable. A girl's options were either long pants or skirts. And at that point I simply threw up my hands and said, "I don't understand!" Capris were now considered immodest? Maybe I was having flash backs to the experience as a twelve year old, but I was so frustrated and angry, my Mom suggested that I avoid going to activities like this in the future.
Then at church one night, we had a panel discussion where we, "the youth" could ask our local leaders questions. I raised my hand, and asked "Why can't we wear capri pants to dances?" The leaders quickly bypassed my very sincere question, with some mumble about it being a more formal occasion. We are not talking about prom here, we are talking about a very low-key, in the gym, juvenile dance. This was just avoidance.
The Honor Code at the university I attended had extensive dress requirements, unfortunately with a self-righteous aspect of shaming. It is also blatantly biased towards infractions by women.There have been numerous experiences by women publicized lately which reveal the demeaning actions and humiliation encountered by women who have been singled out as violators. (One on Valentines' Day) As part of this Honor Code, every potential violation is investigated and the perpetrator is made to feel like they have taken advantage of the poor men around them, who are at the mercy of those around them. There was even an uproar about women wearing messenger bags, because it emphasized their womanly curves.
I'm sorry if my appearance offends you, my burka is on back-order! And in cultures where women wear burkas, their eyes are sexualized! There is no winning this battle!
All these rules do is shame women into believing that they are defined by their appearance. That who they are is not important, but the appearance that they present is the most important.
I'm also the first one to jump on my soap box about how lax and lazy our culture has become in their appearance. Visit any Walmart and look at the people in their pajamas, flip-flops or waistbands around their knees. But I'm not going to impose my appearance desires on anyone else or define women by the length of their clothing. I am a capable woman. I can be responsible for my thoughts and actions and I extend that same privilege to those around me.
I will not dress "sexier" for you, I will not "cover up" for you.
And that is the long and short of it.
Monday, June 17, 2013
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
Joss Whedon. The man. The legend.
Last week, when it was announced on facebook via one of the many "intellectually enthused" (i.e. geek) organizations that I follow, that Joss Wedon had given a commencement address, I immediately found a transcript and read it, then later with time permitting I watched the video. More than once. This King of the Geeks proved to me once again why he holds that place in the ever allegiant world of fandom. From Buffy to Firefly to Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog to the main-stream Avengers, the man can seemingly not make a wrong step.
Side-note: If you became a Joss Whedon fan post-Avengers, I have one question for you.... Who is Vera? If you can answer that you may have the status and title of a Whedonite.
He talked about the contradictions within us all. The tension that is created by these contradictions. And how decisions based on this tension and contradictions becomes identity.
Or in the words of J.M Barrie, “To die would be an awfully big adventure.”
Joss Whedon also has a history of defying the pressures of convention and doing things his way. When the writer's strike shut down much of television and entertainment production, he produced "Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog", bypassing the studio structure and releasing it on-line. He is the rebel to Darth Vadar's Empire. This man is not only a genius because of the quality of his work, but because he consistently is true to his own identity. I very much look forward to watching that identity actively progress. Thank you, Mr. Whedon for your inspiring words.
I love the idea of fluid identity, that it is an active, dynamic process. As Alice told the Caterpillar, on his inquiry as to her identity, "I--I hardly know, sir, just at present-- at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then." I know I feel this way most days, the process of successfully making it through a day a monumental achievement, akin to the development of cold fusion. In other words, I'm not happy with a static situation. I never have been. I wonder sometimes if this is a piece of social dogma that I've somehow missed in my indoctrination, I mean education. Should I accept the concept of settling down and just living the life I've ended up with? Be a happy little proletariat, content to sell my time to the bourgeoisie?
Identity... the idea of constant change and growth, development, is the antithesis of stagnation and passive acceptance of a situation. People can and MUST change. If you are not changing, identity developing, you are dying. A concept also discussed by Joss Whedon, our bodies' ambition is death. As in Shakespeare's immortal Hamlet soliloquy:
To die,—to sleep,—
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to,—’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die,—to sleep;—
To sleep: perchance to dream:
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to,—’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die,—to sleep;—
To sleep: perchance to dream:
Joss Whedon also has a history of defying the pressures of convention and doing things his way. When the writer's strike shut down much of television and entertainment production, he produced "Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog", bypassing the studio structure and releasing it on-line. He is the rebel to Darth Vadar's Empire. This man is not only a genius because of the quality of his work, but because he consistently is true to his own identity. I very much look forward to watching that identity actively progress. Thank you, Mr. Whedon for your inspiring words.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Going to buy a milk cow and some chickens
I read a very interesting blog post over on Young Mormon Feminists the other day, wanted to add some of my thoughts. It's called "Hate the Extrative Economy, Not the (domesticity) Game"
The author basically argues that many of the real issues facing women in our society are a result of amplified "principles of capitalism", a system of "extractive economy that mines any person, place and thing withing its reach", which have affected both men and women. The author quotes Betty Friedan in saying that the real reason behind the closing of the earnings gap between the genders is substantially because of the drop in men's earnings. More women are working, but not in addition to men. Men and women need to unite in this battle against the capitalist machine, instead of declaring each other enemies.
It is a reality that "the modern workplace makes time and energy demands that are suited to men and assumes that they have a spouse at home to take care of the chores of daily life". Not only is this seen in the workplace, but I've seen this especially in my church. It is expected that each individual has that nuclear family support structure, which allows the church to place demands on this individuals time and ability. Men work, women support. Women are assigned multiple individuals to fellowship (Visiting Teaching), expected to provide food for activities, decorate, provide music for services, all while juggling childcare, house maintenance and any semblance of social life they might have. Would you ever see a man bring a casserole? Decorate for the youth dance? Don't even get me started on the inequalities of visiting and home teaching.
I think this is why some people get disillusioned and offended in the church, because leadership see people in terms of households, which cumulatively have more resources to offer. Those members who do not fit in the box of the ideal Mormon family simply don't have the same physical and emotional resources to offer.
So often feminists react to the demands of domesticity, rather than this consumer based extractive culture they are operating under. The real issue here is that "women's tasks" or domestic productive tasks are demeaned, expected in support to the all important male providing role. Before the industrial revolution households produced rather than consumed. Families worked together, doing whatever they needed, regardless of gender roles. It is only in post-industrialism that gender roles became so firmly entrenched.
This idea fits right in with my developing perspective on Third Wave Feminism, the idea that each woman has the right to define feminism for themselves. There should not be any blanket description of femininity or masculinity that is imposed, in either extreme. The cultural emphasis of women as consumers, the "this product will make taking care of your family easier" tripe that we are fed daily in television commercials limits their identity. Where as "true domestic skills- ranging from gardening to fixing cars to cooking- offer a way to begin taking back our relationships" from the machine of capitalism. No one gender should have the monopoly on any domestic skill.
So, as my fellow blogger states, when asked about my future and I say "in all seriousness, 'I'm going to buy a milk cow and some chickens'" it is because I am writing my own definitions of femininity as a domesticly productive woman, taking a stand against the prevailing extractive consumption based culture.
Original post:
http://youngmormonfeminists.org/2013/05/29/hate-the-extractive-economy-not-the-domesticity-game/
The author basically argues that many of the real issues facing women in our society are a result of amplified "principles of capitalism", a system of "extractive economy that mines any person, place and thing withing its reach", which have affected both men and women. The author quotes Betty Friedan in saying that the real reason behind the closing of the earnings gap between the genders is substantially because of the drop in men's earnings. More women are working, but not in addition to men. Men and women need to unite in this battle against the capitalist machine, instead of declaring each other enemies.
It is a reality that "the modern workplace makes time and energy demands that are suited to men and assumes that they have a spouse at home to take care of the chores of daily life". Not only is this seen in the workplace, but I've seen this especially in my church. It is expected that each individual has that nuclear family support structure, which allows the church to place demands on this individuals time and ability. Men work, women support. Women are assigned multiple individuals to fellowship (Visiting Teaching), expected to provide food for activities, decorate, provide music for services, all while juggling childcare, house maintenance and any semblance of social life they might have. Would you ever see a man bring a casserole? Decorate for the youth dance? Don't even get me started on the inequalities of visiting and home teaching.
I think this is why some people get disillusioned and offended in the church, because leadership see people in terms of households, which cumulatively have more resources to offer. Those members who do not fit in the box of the ideal Mormon family simply don't have the same physical and emotional resources to offer.
So often feminists react to the demands of domesticity, rather than this consumer based extractive culture they are operating under. The real issue here is that "women's tasks" or domestic productive tasks are demeaned, expected in support to the all important male providing role. Before the industrial revolution households produced rather than consumed. Families worked together, doing whatever they needed, regardless of gender roles. It is only in post-industrialism that gender roles became so firmly entrenched.
This idea fits right in with my developing perspective on Third Wave Feminism, the idea that each woman has the right to define feminism for themselves. There should not be any blanket description of femininity or masculinity that is imposed, in either extreme. The cultural emphasis of women as consumers, the "this product will make taking care of your family easier" tripe that we are fed daily in television commercials limits their identity. Where as "true domestic skills- ranging from gardening to fixing cars to cooking- offer a way to begin taking back our relationships" from the machine of capitalism. No one gender should have the monopoly on any domestic skill.
So, as my fellow blogger states, when asked about my future and I say "in all seriousness, 'I'm going to buy a milk cow and some chickens'" it is because I am writing my own definitions of femininity as a domesticly productive woman, taking a stand against the prevailing extractive consumption based culture.
Original post:
http://youngmormonfeminists.org/2013/05/29/hate-the-extractive-economy-not-the-domesticity-game/
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
A Minor Procedure
My dad... he’s quite a character.
For example...
I took him into the hospital for a minor procedure, albeit slightly painful. He was whining and complaining, but nothing more that I expected. He’s always been a bit of a baby about pain. He makes deathbed confessions and promises quite regularly. We’ve just learned to smile and pat his hand. “There, there...”
We went into the patient intake, the nurse asks some questions (birthdate, allergies, insurance) and then off-handedley says, “And we are going in through the right one.”
“The right?” Dad asks.
“Yes, the right.”
Awkward pause.
“But I only have one bladder...”
Cue my inappropriate laughter.
“What if they accidentally take your bladder? Mr. 'Smith', I'm sorry to tell you this, but we've lost your bladder!”
“What if they accidentally take your bladder? Mr. 'Smith', I'm sorry to tell you this, but we've lost your bladder!”
"Or like a cow, six bladders!"
"Um, I think that is stomachs."
The poor intake nurse just stares at us.
"Um, I think that is stomachs."
The poor intake nurse just stares at us.
--------
After they process him, he’s all attached to various machines, poked like a pincushion and minorly humiliated. They allow me back in and I magnanimously take on my responsibility of distracting him from the upcoming pain and awkwardness.
We first discuss the possibility to an alien tracking device being implanted in him during the surgery... pros and cons... are these benevolent anthropologist-like aliens? Maybe this implant can cure cancer, in which case we are all for it.
Then we move onto death by stepping into some sort of particle beam. “Kind of like in Quantum Leap!” I suggest
“Yeah! What was the name of the machine.... the kind of God like character that told him what his mission was...”
“Zoey.... Mickey... no...”
“Ziggy!” we both nearly shout in unison.
-----------
Through all of this sparkling conversation, he is complaining about being hungry.
“They say after the surgery I can’t leave till I eat, drink and pee. So I’m thinking a big steak from the 5 star Grill... but no... what do I get? Jello.”
“I like Jello.” I cautiously interject.
“But it’s so... hospitally.”
“Oh, very clique” I add helpfully. “And dangerous, remember in 3rd Rock from the Sun?”
“Oooh, maybe a big teriyaki burger!”
“Well, if you are really good, maybe you can have one for dinner tonight,” I suggest.
He rolls his eyes dangerously.
He rolls his eyes dangerously.
----
After the surgery, I text my mother for a status update.
“Is he out?”
And her superfluous response.... “He survived”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)