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.

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:

Stay tuned for .....

Changes in Religious Law.... 

next time on Adventures in Time and Space!

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.

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:

This is the case for both a female and male audience. Woman have been made to aspire and emulate woman as portrayed above, when it would be much more realistic to advertise comfort and support as the defining factor in underwear. Because I can guarantee that the women shown above are NOT comfortable.

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.

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

Vanishing Liberties

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!)