For all of you Seattle folks, I imagine you are like me. You are sick and tired of seeing "Dreamgirls" signs atop taxi cabs all around the city. They shine at night, illuminating giant pink letters over the top of a platinum blonde's open mouth. Or perhaps you see the brunette in leather, reclining seductively on some invisible cushion. Whichever it is, I hope that you, like me, are weary of seeing such blatant eroticism on display. As I move into my critique of this advertising campaign, I want to first be sure that I do not give into a very obvious androcentric temptation. Too quickly, people assault strip clubs as marriage breakers and places that tempt men. Oftentimes, the critique of strip clubs is focused on men and their perversion or infidelity as well as demonizing the women who work at such joints. Instead, I want to look at the women and the men as victims in order to move blame away from the participants and into a demonic society.
Since I have never been to "Dreamgirls" or any strip club for that matter, I will simply launch my critique from the wording on the signs. Each sign reads with this:
"DREAMGIRLS: Seattle's Newest Gentleman's Club"
Let us break down this sign bit by bit.
First, to state the obvious, it is an ad for a place where there are nude or scantily clad women on display for men to observe. This place where women are displayed is immediately identified as a "Dream". Dreams are places where events occur without any of your control. Anything can happen in a dream, and when you wake up, there are no consequences. It does not matter if you killed someone or if someone killed you; a dream has no real life ramifications. Thus, at first glance, this sign espouses a lie. It implies that your participation and visitation at the place will cause no damage. In fact, it separates the confines of the club from everything outside of it. Nothing, not your psyche, not your physical body, not your spirit, not your marriage, not your platonic relationships with women, not your relationship with your female relatives, will experience any ramifications from entering. Men receive a lie in order to tempt them into the club.
Men become the victims of a falsehood. If we ask them to be discerning, then they are truly being deceived. The club promises what it cannot give: nothing. Nothing appears harmless, yet it promises everything! What does it promise? This is where the women come in.
Two contrasting gender titles jump off these signs: "GIRLS" and "man's". Who is a girl? A girl is young; she is innocent; and she is a female. Who is a man? A man is established; he is older, perhaps 25 at the youngest; and he is a male. Add two adjectives, "DREAM", which we already discussed, and "gentle" and the contrast goes even higher. While "dream" signifies inconsequential, wonderful mystery, "gentleman" connotes a grounded, pleasant, respectable person who earned such a title based on how he is. The men are flattered while the women are mislabeled. The sign creates an authoritarian relationship. As elder and respected, the men grasp power over the "girls". "DREAMGIRLS" promises the men power at the expense of the women.
The power dynamic reveals itself through the language used: "men" and "girls". We cannot dance around the honest truth; the linguistic power dynamic encourages rape. This is why it is tempered with "DREAM". At dream girls, one can rape girls without any consequences. The women are turned into young girls, and the men are encouraged to commit sexual acts with them all the while maintaining respectability while the women maintain innocence. Quite obviously, this is impossible. Problems arise when fantasy becomes reality, when men wake up from the dream and realize it was real. How do we solve the problem? How do we end a world with "DREAMGIRLS"?
We require a societal shift. Using the "DREAMGIRLS" signs, we can observe the norms. What strip clubs represent is a form of puritanical sexuality. They indicate what a culture believes sex should be like. Unfortunately, sex requires trust, vulnerability, and emotion. What would sex be like without these things? A strip club shows us. What does society want from sex? First, it wants no consequences. Second, and more importantly, it requires, from women, virginity and innocence. Of course, these women spend their days taking their clothes off. Such an expectation of them is impossible. That proves the point. The fantasy of society is virginal, young women having sex with aged, respectable men. This puts the power into men's hands. They are the adults, the strong, and the respected subjecting the young, innocent girls to their sexual fantasies. How do we change this?
Primarily, we need to remove virginity and innocence as the highest value for women. This should not be replaced with eroticism and sexual experience. That would only cause the same problem. Instead, we need to equalize women and men. The high virtues for women should be respectability, accomplishment, establishment, etc. The same connotation of gentlemen should come into our minds when we think of great women. Also, we need to change the categories for men. Men who look for young, innocent women, whether it be for dating or for flings, need to be seen as what they are: predators. We can no longer equivocate sexual desire expressed through pure indulgence as anything other than violence against women. Sex cannot be seen as something to exert power in; rather it is an exercise between equals. Ending the violence will mean men can no longer romanticize about pure, virginal women. That is violence. Such fantasy accomplishes the opposite of its intent: it rapes rather than respects. Moreover, we need to tell the "DREAMGIRLS" of the world that we do not want their misogyny. They can go fuck themselves. Maybe that will teach them the importance of sex between equals. Peace!
-ben adam
Agnus Dei
How G-d rules the world!
Showing posts with label Anarchism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anarchism. Show all posts
01 June 2010
Back From Colombia
Hello. I am back from Colombia and other travels. This is my first post about the experience, and I will be only discussing how the trip changed me but not why.
First, I went with Christian Peacemaker Teams, but very little of it was "Christian" in the narrowly defined Western view of Christianity. We recognized our Christianity as a unifying subject but not a driving object. I left feeling spiritually suffocated and dry. Ironically, as difficult as this was, I appreciated it immensely. It reoriented my faith away from an ecclesio-centrism toward resistance-centered spirituality. It reminded me of my favorite verses in the Bible from Amos 5.21-24
I hate, I despise your festivals,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Even though you offer me your burnt-offerings and grain-offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals
I will not look upon.
Take away from me the noise of your songs;
I will not listen to the melody of your harps.
But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
The time for praise songs is up. The time for justice has come. The economic system that at this very moment continues to consume the world is one of death, and Christians must rise to challenge it. If we do not, we become unfaithful. We affirm G-d with our lips and avoid G-d with our lives. Needless to say, it will be difficult to go to church and even more difficult to work for one which is a distinct possibility in the coming months.
I am now less concerned with doctrinal discrepancies. If people are willing to stand and resist the dehumanizing power of global capitalism, then they are not against us. I would say, in a sense, CPT made me more pluralist, but actually, it reoriented my objectiveness. No more do I accept a Christian faith that pays homage to the flag. That might sound harsh, but it is true. G-d hates flags.
I now have a longing desire to learn Spanish and perhaps more languages. I will be learning all I can about Latin America history and economics. Hopefully, in the next couple years I will go back to school. I am not sure what I will study, but my days of academic theology are almost over. Certainly, I appreciated my theological education. It will stick with me forever. The skills I learned were invaluable, but the time has come to invest myself in something with which I am able to reach out beyond abstract statements concerning G-d. Besides, my theological education may come best from the dirt rather than from the school built on it.
Finally, my new goal is deconstruction. The government must be taken apart. Neo-liberalism must be undone. The systems and structures that support death must pass away. In that rubble, up will rise the true Church. The people who say no to death and yes to resurrection. Certainly G-d will be on their side. I cannot wait. Peace!
-ben adam
First, I went with Christian Peacemaker Teams, but very little of it was "Christian" in the narrowly defined Western view of Christianity. We recognized our Christianity as a unifying subject but not a driving object. I left feeling spiritually suffocated and dry. Ironically, as difficult as this was, I appreciated it immensely. It reoriented my faith away from an ecclesio-centrism toward resistance-centered spirituality. It reminded me of my favorite verses in the Bible from Amos 5.21-24
I hate, I despise your festivals,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Even though you offer me your burnt-offerings and grain-offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals
I will not look upon.
Take away from me the noise of your songs;
I will not listen to the melody of your harps.
But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
The time for praise songs is up. The time for justice has come. The economic system that at this very moment continues to consume the world is one of death, and Christians must rise to challenge it. If we do not, we become unfaithful. We affirm G-d with our lips and avoid G-d with our lives. Needless to say, it will be difficult to go to church and even more difficult to work for one which is a distinct possibility in the coming months.
I am now less concerned with doctrinal discrepancies. If people are willing to stand and resist the dehumanizing power of global capitalism, then they are not against us. I would say, in a sense, CPT made me more pluralist, but actually, it reoriented my objectiveness. No more do I accept a Christian faith that pays homage to the flag. That might sound harsh, but it is true. G-d hates flags.
I now have a longing desire to learn Spanish and perhaps more languages. I will be learning all I can about Latin America history and economics. Hopefully, in the next couple years I will go back to school. I am not sure what I will study, but my days of academic theology are almost over. Certainly, I appreciated my theological education. It will stick with me forever. The skills I learned were invaluable, but the time has come to invest myself in something with which I am able to reach out beyond abstract statements concerning G-d. Besides, my theological education may come best from the dirt rather than from the school built on it.
Finally, my new goal is deconstruction. The government must be taken apart. Neo-liberalism must be undone. The systems and structures that support death must pass away. In that rubble, up will rise the true Church. The people who say no to death and yes to resurrection. Certainly G-d will be on their side. I cannot wait. Peace!
-ben adam
07 May 2010
Why Christian Faith and Patriotism/Nationalism Are Incompatible
One day, my father said to me, "In an age in which we possess pictures of the world from space, we know that actual national borders do not exist. We decided where they are. So I do not see how one group of people has the right to tell another group of people where they can and cannot live based on borders that are imaginary." I think about this a lot. His insight implicated to me the fundamentals of culture and the nation-state. By reflecting on my father's statement, I hope to show that patriotism cannot coexist with resolute Christian faith.
Nation-states are comprised of people. They rely on social contracts. In these contracts, people decide which cultural groups will make up the nation-state. After the borders of the nation-state are drawn, people from within those borders erect a system of rules under which everyone within those borders must abide by. If these rules are not followed, the people who created the system, or their inheritors, will coerce the people to abide by them. This coercion may be a police force or an army. Of course, this means there must be some level of agreement on what must be punished and what must be accepted. People then decide whether on what is allowed. Whatever is decided makes up the code for identifying the nation-state. A nation-state is the laws enforced upon people within certain (imaginary) boundaries.
Who creates these boundaries? A person of meager living with few possessions and little influence will have both little need of creating boundaries and little power to do so. Only those who have much will require the safety net of a nation-state and the security it promises. Not only that, those with substantial means are the only ones viable to provide the resources necessary to build a system of government. Thus, all governments develop by the elite and for the elite. Patriotism becomes the way into maintaining the wealthy and their power.
By convincing people to believe that the legal code within the imaginary boundaries that encapsulate their living space is the most supreme and just legal code, the wealthy elite who created the nation-state grasp the loyalty of all those within the imaginary borders. Hence, those who have little need of the nation-state become its most loyal subjects. Why? Because if they resist the new order, if they say no to the financially powerful, they will be coerced into complicity, for the ones at the top of the heap rely on those at the bottom to give popular support to the nation-state's system of protection. The truth of all this became painfully obvious in the First World War. In it, almost an entire generation of men in Europe died in a massive attempt to maintain the sovereignty of people over the imaginary borders they ruled.
The nation-state serves to protect the interests of those who possess the resources to govern it. Its make-up derives from pretend borders decided by those strong enough to enforce such borders. How then is patriotism incompatible with patriotism or nationalism?
Christianity affirms G-d as the ruler of the entire earth. Moreover, Jesus, the ruler of this earth, suffered a disgraceful death and a triumphant resurrection. This is the good news: G-d presides and no one else. Borders, therefore, have no meaning. G-d's king did not establish national boundaries but obliterated them (Acts 10). Paul understood this quite well, and he became notorious for preaching it unabashedly. If G-d's presiding authority extends beyond imaginary boundaries (since they do not in fact exist upon the earth), those who live under the presidency of Jesus cannot, in good conscience, claim loyalty to something as pretend as nation-state borders. Furthermore, Christians do not believe that Jesus presides over those who have faith in him; Jesus presides over everything whether they like it or not. We all are residents in G-d's nation-state; some just want to believe they belong to a different one. If we begin to affirm this, we will understand a little better Jesus' call to love our enemies. How could we kill another citizen? What needs to begin in Christianity is an abandonment of any type of ethnocentrism and the promulgation of true globalization (see this link http://www.newleftreview.org/A2368). Perhaps then we will finally see what peace, reconciliation, and the healing of the nations (Revelation 22.2) is all about.
Nation-states are comprised of people. They rely on social contracts. In these contracts, people decide which cultural groups will make up the nation-state. After the borders of the nation-state are drawn, people from within those borders erect a system of rules under which everyone within those borders must abide by. If these rules are not followed, the people who created the system, or their inheritors, will coerce the people to abide by them. This coercion may be a police force or an army. Of course, this means there must be some level of agreement on what must be punished and what must be accepted. People then decide whether on what is allowed. Whatever is decided makes up the code for identifying the nation-state. A nation-state is the laws enforced upon people within certain (imaginary) boundaries.
Who creates these boundaries? A person of meager living with few possessions and little influence will have both little need of creating boundaries and little power to do so. Only those who have much will require the safety net of a nation-state and the security it promises. Not only that, those with substantial means are the only ones viable to provide the resources necessary to build a system of government. Thus, all governments develop by the elite and for the elite. Patriotism becomes the way into maintaining the wealthy and their power.
By convincing people to believe that the legal code within the imaginary boundaries that encapsulate their living space is the most supreme and just legal code, the wealthy elite who created the nation-state grasp the loyalty of all those within the imaginary borders. Hence, those who have little need of the nation-state become its most loyal subjects. Why? Because if they resist the new order, if they say no to the financially powerful, they will be coerced into complicity, for the ones at the top of the heap rely on those at the bottom to give popular support to the nation-state's system of protection. The truth of all this became painfully obvious in the First World War. In it, almost an entire generation of men in Europe died in a massive attempt to maintain the sovereignty of people over the imaginary borders they ruled.
The nation-state serves to protect the interests of those who possess the resources to govern it. Its make-up derives from pretend borders decided by those strong enough to enforce such borders. How then is patriotism incompatible with patriotism or nationalism?
Christianity affirms G-d as the ruler of the entire earth. Moreover, Jesus, the ruler of this earth, suffered a disgraceful death and a triumphant resurrection. This is the good news: G-d presides and no one else. Borders, therefore, have no meaning. G-d's king did not establish national boundaries but obliterated them (Acts 10). Paul understood this quite well, and he became notorious for preaching it unabashedly. If G-d's presiding authority extends beyond imaginary boundaries (since they do not in fact exist upon the earth), those who live under the presidency of Jesus cannot, in good conscience, claim loyalty to something as pretend as nation-state borders. Furthermore, Christians do not believe that Jesus presides over those who have faith in him; Jesus presides over everything whether they like it or not. We all are residents in G-d's nation-state; some just want to believe they belong to a different one. If we begin to affirm this, we will understand a little better Jesus' call to love our enemies. How could we kill another citizen? What needs to begin in Christianity is an abandonment of any type of ethnocentrism and the promulgation of true globalization (see this link http://www.newleftreview.org/A2368). Perhaps then we will finally see what peace, reconciliation, and the healing of the nations (Revelation 22.2) is all about.
17 February 2010
Messes of Ben
Welcome!
I had a blog once. I shared it with two good friends. The friends are still around, but the blog kind of died. Then, I tried to follow another friend's blog on blogger, and for some reason I needed a blog to follow? I think, but anyway, I made one. Actually, I had been planning on making one for some time. Here it is.
The title comes from the first song on mewithoutYou's fantastic third album Brother, Sister. The song is titled "Messes of Men". It is about messes we get into, particularly adultery. I realize each day the mess I am in. My ideological beliefs are fairly radical and difficult to live into. What's more, my beliefs are radically different than the dominant belief structures of our day. I am therefore faced with a predicament. I believe in a difficult moral standard that subverts most worldviews (Christian and secular alike). Consequently, I attempt to employ my mess in a way that subverts the dominating mess we face in society today! What a mess!
My new blog exists to chronicle my experiences of attempting to mess up our tidy evaluations of what Christian living really is (especially since the Christians are so lukewarm and the non-Christians think that's what G-d is like!). I will write my sermons here, summarize books I am reading, narrate my adventures in volunteering with homeless shelters and other groups, and chronicle my own personal struggles to live radically. I hope you will join me. It should be an absolute mess. Peace!
-ben adam
I had a blog once. I shared it with two good friends. The friends are still around, but the blog kind of died. Then, I tried to follow another friend's blog on blogger, and for some reason I needed a blog to follow? I think, but anyway, I made one. Actually, I had been planning on making one for some time. Here it is.
The title comes from the first song on mewithoutYou's fantastic third album Brother, Sister. The song is titled "Messes of Men". It is about messes we get into, particularly adultery. I realize each day the mess I am in. My ideological beliefs are fairly radical and difficult to live into. What's more, my beliefs are radically different than the dominant belief structures of our day. I am therefore faced with a predicament. I believe in a difficult moral standard that subverts most worldviews (Christian and secular alike). Consequently, I attempt to employ my mess in a way that subverts the dominating mess we face in society today! What a mess!
My new blog exists to chronicle my experiences of attempting to mess up our tidy evaluations of what Christian living really is (especially since the Christians are so lukewarm and the non-Christians think that's what G-d is like!). I will write my sermons here, summarize books I am reading, narrate my adventures in volunteering with homeless shelters and other groups, and chronicle my own personal struggles to live radically. I hope you will join me. It should be an absolute mess. Peace!
-ben adam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)