Dreamgirls and the Subjection of People Through Strip Clubs Revised and Expanded

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 sick and 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 (or women) 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 or good. 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. This “nothing” includes sexual pleasure, but more importantly, it grants men a seat of power. As the ones to be entertained, they demand what they want to see. The women who supply it, offer only themselves to fill the demand. While it costs the man nothing more than money, it costs the women to become objectified commodities for male consumption. “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’”. 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.
At a fundamental level, the men caricature the women. This adds to the lie. “Dream” comes across with a double meaning. Caricatured as a “Dream”, the connotation is one of perfection. The phrase carries the same undertones as one's “dream car”, “dream house”, or even “dream mate”. What does one want beyond all other things? The answer lies in the dream. The title “DREAMGIRLS” equates the women with desire, but the desire brings only external observation and fantasy. Their humanity is removed, and they become an object much like a car, house, or any other possession that sits loftily out of reach. No longer do the women act as humans; the fantasy of desire from “gentleman” has objectified them. Objectification leads to crimes much worse.
The power dynamic reveals itself through the language used: “men” and “girls”. One is subject; the other is object. The subject-object roles dehumanize the women who work there and empowers the men who watch. This brings into question the entire business model of the operation. The owners provide a commodity. These objects are perfect, inconsequential, fulfillment of desire. I believe it pertinent to note at this juncture that the language excludes a relationship between two consenting adults. The women represent the object of the subject's desire thus removing her volition in the exchange. The objectification permits a disparate level of power. Mainly, it removes power from the women (consider the upper-class sex-industry workers who have the freedom to choose their patrons in comparison to a pole-dancer who must endure the general public). The language reveals this removal of power. “Girls” are always subject to the power of “men”. “Gentlemen”, which implies some form of nobility, possess elevated, socially permitted power over “girls”.
In most societies, we forbid sexual encounters between men and girls. The girls are vulnerable and impotent to protect themselves from unwanted sex imposed upon them by men. Therefore, we cannot dance around the honest truth: the linguistic power dynamic of “DREAMGIRLS: Seattle's Newest Gentleman’s Club” encourages rape through the empowering of an already powerful group and the objectifying of women and their bodies. This is why it is tempered with “DREAM”. At “DREAMGIRLS”, 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 and 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. This is the worst expectation of all. Society expects sex to derive from the power of men. It refuses female sexuality as autonomous and requires it to be subject of male sexual desires. At “Dreamgirls”, men 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 as the ideal. 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. In this, we must liberate female sexuality. We cannot accomplish this by encouraging unfettered promiscuity. Instead, encouragement of men and women (this also applies to couple in same-sex relationships) to be in equitable sexual relationships needs to replace the power experienced by men and the submission of women. We must be empowered for each other rather than over one another. 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. In order to change male experience of sexuality, we must encourage men to step out from their experience into the sexual experience of women. I do not mean we should pay back men for their historic violence. We should educate men about how women feel and express sexual desire.
Ending the violence will mean men can no longer romanticize about pure, virginal women. That is violence. It gives no respect to women and their sexual desires. 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!

Mega-church Pastors: Crooks and Their Books

I am like a barista who cannot drink another latte. I feel like an author who cannot write because she no longer likes words. I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Why do I feel like this? Of what am I sick and tired? I cannot bear to endure the written words of another popular, well-to-do mega-church pastor. Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, Joel Osteen, Greg Boyd, I do not care who it is. I never want to see it ever again. It is like listening to a biologist talk about how biology should not be taught in schools. It is like watching an actor say to a reporter that movies need to end. Moreover, they are some of the cleverest marketers to ever walk the face of the earth, and I can no longer stand to see them ply their trade throughout the land.

My furious anger against these crooks recently rekindled while browsing at one of my housemate's books titled Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless G-d by Francis Chan. I saw this book hundreds of times on the shelves of SPU students. I never looked closely at it. It appeared to me as though it carried another heart-felt, Chicken soup style message with a strong cultural relevance just like Blue Like Jazz or Velvet Elvis. As it sat on my coffee table, I nonchalantly reached over and snagged it. On the cover is a hip design of a rudimentary up-arrow next to an asymmetrically drawn down-arrow. Only the book's subtitle graces the cover, and it comes at the bottom right-hand corner right above the author's (and co-author's?) name. Chris Tomlin, the well-known worship artist, got a credit underneath the author(s) for writing the foreword. If you know me, you know that by the time I finished looking at the cover I was disgusted and annoyed. I decided to at least see what the book had to say; so I flipped it over and read the back cover. Its contents were less than surprising.

Right at the top, in big bold letters, the cover reads, “G-D IS LOVE. CRAZY, RELENTLESS, ALL-POWERFUL LOVE”. Ugh! I find it tragically obnoxious that someone finds it necessary to write this down in a book. The statement, “G-d is love” lies somewhere in a voluminous library of a book called the Bible (I doubt most people who read this book know where in the Bible). The truth of this statement resides in the call 1 John (that is the place where “G-d is love” is) makes of Christians which is loving community. This phrase, 1 John reassures us, means nothing outside community. Does community exist anywhere as important on the back cover? No, it does not, and I am a stickler for proper biblical interpretation. Strike two for this guy.

His sub-phrase kills me. “Crazy, relentless, all-powerful love” sounds psychopathic. I know it is supposed to convey some kind of amazing feeling of a loving G-d, but why? Why does he want to convey this message? I believe the answer to this is nothing less than self-righteous and pathetic. 

The first line beneath the back-cover's titles packs a punch, “Have you ever wondered if we're missing it?” The picture of the author at the pulpit and the dialogical style of writing make one feel as though he is asking you personally. The large letters above implicate that his thesis involves convincing the readers that once they understand G-d's psychopathic love then they will no longer be “missing” it. Of course, whatever this “it” is never receives mention. “It” could literally be anything. Another one line paragraph then enumerates what is going on with “it”. Apparently, “it” has gone wrong or at least “something” has.

These words were carefully chosen and cleverly designed. They paint a general picture of broad dissatisfaction and present an even vaguer answer to the problem. Any issue in one's life can be cut and paste into the problem. “Yes, something is wrong. I feel like I have been missing it.” The back-cover proceeds to muse about finding a meaningful, authentic faith. This hope for an authentic faith directly contrasts with the implied inauthentic faith listed as going to church, singing songs, and trying not to cuss as the typical response to the “G-d of the universe—the Creator of nitrogen and pine needles, galaxies and E minor”. Clearly, this author believes church-going and worship services are completely useless. They do not foster relationship with G-d. True relationship with G-d comes from a “faith that addresses the problems of our world with tangible, even radical, solutions”. The only way possible for something as monumental as a radical, grounded, transcendent faith is to fall madly in love with G-d. This will solve what is “wrong”. No longer will you miss “it”. Essentially, Chan promises an answer to every problem.

So, if you have been following me so far, here is the back-cover in a nutshell: G-d is love; something is wrong; church is not the answer; church is status quo faith; falling in love with G-d is the solution; and falling in love with G-d will change you into a person with radical, tangible ideas for solving the problems of the world.

Great! Sign me up! I'll fall in love with G-d! Please, just tell me how...wait a second. I call bull shit. Fall madly in love with G-d? That sounds like what my Sunday School teachers told me. Create an authentic faith? I am sure I have heard that sermon before. 

“I am sorry Francis, where did you say you work again?”

“Me? Oh, I didn't. I work at a mega-church I planted in California. I also founded a Bible College, and I sit on the board of some organizations. I have a family, too.”

“Oh, that makes sense. I mean, what pastor doesn't think church isn't the answer to...wait, what?!”

At this moment, I grew sick to my stomach. I held some suspicions, and the “About the Author” confirmed them. Francis Chan is no radical. He merely represents another spoke in the wheel of the system that convinces people they are outside the system. In Naomi Klein's No Logo, she discusses how our generation loves ironic marketing. Ironic marketing involves the product being sold portrayed in a negative light with some form of humor attached. Take for example the Old Spice commercials in which a man is seen showering. As the camera pulls back, he turns out to be a centaur (half person, half horse). A beautiful woman then comes to him and makes a funny comment. Now, no one is a centaur, and certainly, a woman would never be a centaur's partner. The whole thought of the commercial is extremely creepy. Who would buy something that advertises itself via bestiality? Nevertheless, it is exactly the type of advertising that dominates today's marketing campaigns, and Crazy Love uses the the same ploy. 

 

Chan leads the reader on to believe that his solution is something other than going to church. On the contrary, he himself pastors a church. He sits on the board of directors of an urban church-planting organization, World Impact. His church alone has planted nine different churches in six different states. He derides people's response to G-d as church-going, but he enables them at every turn. It is ironic advertising. It is akin to the new Microsoft cell phone commercials. These commercials chastise people who never stop using their smart phones. It posits at the commercial's end that the new Microsoft phone will solve the problem. Chan's advice does the same. He plays on a common frustration: church fulfills very little spiritual needs and does an extremely poor job of addressing critical issues occurring in the world. His solution claims the end of church, but it also demands going to church. Of course, falling in love with G-d only happens in the places where they are talking about G-d. Naturally, church is where one would go to did this falling in love.

More importantly, let us tease out the logic of his vocation and his book. First, it marks the general dissatisfaction of its readers. It then proposes a solution. This solution excludes the others who are a part of the problem: the churches who fail us. Francis Chan has your answers, and you can find them at: his church, in his book, through his sermons, or at one of his church plants. In the end, whether he intended it or not, his book is a shameless self-promotion. It grants him the answers, and the answer is just vague enough to get someone to want more. 

On a broader basis, I cannot deal with this kind of ludicrous production. These pastors grow into small celebrities then publish some kind of book based on poor bible scholarship and brand marketing. The content of these books is relentless and redundant. They dislocate their readers (who are typically youth and young adults) by telling them they need to disengage from their communities, find some hip, up-and-coming church, and congratulate themselves on a job well done. Furthermore, they do not actually call into question a sick society. They propagate an ethnocentric ideology that locates the world's problems as everywhere outside the confines of middle-class suburbia. Suburbia represents the ideal way of being, and the urban, the rural poor, and those living in Majority World countries (poor countries that make up a majority of the economic world) need to enter into the new earth that is little boxes on the hillside and massive quantities of Prozac. When a mega-church pastor calls for the dissolution of nation-states, the micro-organization of churches, the end of capitalism, and Jesus as a social and political revolutionary who stood up against an empire completely analogous to today's United States, then I will pay a little attention. Until then, I am tired of these crooks and their books. I am sick and tired of listening to their sermons. And I only pray that I never become like one of them.

Yelling at a Person Under a Bus, ‘Watch Out! You’re About to Get Hit By a Bus!’

                The title of this sermon is Yelling at a Person Under a Bus, ‘Watch Out! You’re About to Get Hit By a Bus!’ It concerns the 14^th chapter of the Book of Jeremiah which might very well be one of the most important books for our time.  Despite its importance, I believe a great deal of confusion surrounds our reading of Jeremiah.  The confusion grows out of resistance to its absolutely radical message: we, as human beings, can wound G-d, and there are consequences for causing divine damage.  The theology of Jeremiah flies in the face of the predominating theology that turns G-d into Superman and Jesus into Clark Kent, G-d’s everyman alter ego.  G-d’s superhero status originated with Israel’s false prophets and now emanates from pulpits everywhere whether it is Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel or Richard Dawkins and his assault on theism.  The long and the short of it is this, G-d  When we read Jeremiah, we find a G-d who is entirely different. has faded away from being seen as the creator who is intimately tied to creation, and instead is seen as a hero out of old western films: killing the bad guys and rescuing the innocent.

Jeremiah 14

                If you do not already, please open up Jeremiah 14 (or click here: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=154975713).  I want to work through it as quickly and as extensively as possible.  What we have in these verses is a dialogue occurring between Yhwh, Jeremiah, and the people of Judah.  The people feel abandoned as they struggle through a drought and war; Yhwh feels abandoned by the people who Yhwh established a covenant with so long ago; and Jeremiah feels alone as the only prophet proclaiming destruction instead of peace.  This dialogue opens with an image of Judah in distress for the lack of water and food.

                At the chapter’s outset, Judah is in dire straights.  No one has water.  The word commonly translated as “cisterns” or “wells” in v. 3 actually refers to the irrigation canals dug by farmers.  The elite people of the cities are at their last resort.  They have sent their servants to the last possible place to get water, and they are ashamed of stooping so low in order to get what they typically have an abundance of.  That is why the farmers in v. 4, like the nobles, are dismayed, but unlike the nobles digging in the top soil for water for the first time, the farmers are not ashamed to be drinking from irrigation drains.  Nevertheless, everyone covers their head in sadness as they go thirsty.

                The poem moves from city to country and out into the wilderness.  Take note here how observant ancient peoples were of their surroundings.  Deer typically birthed fawns far from people in the heavily forested areas, but the doe has come to the fields without her young.  Clearly, even the wild animals are starving.  The donkeys are going blind.  What we know now is that blindness occurs due to a lack of vitamin A.  Grass contains “carotene” which is turned into vitamin A in a donkey’s internal organs.  A complete lack of grass could spell blindness.  The devastation is affecting everyone and everything.

                Judah raises a stink with G-d in vv. 7-9 because of the drought.  They put forth a formal lamentation.  First, they confess their sins.  They then frame their feeling of abandonment between two affirmations of G-d’s greatness.  They call Yhwh the “hope of Israel” in v. 8.  This word “hope” also, in Hebrew, means “pool of water”.  Thus it gives a double meaning in the face of the drought.  They wonder why G-d is not acting like Superman.  They even refer to G-d as “a mighty warrior”.  “Why is this mighty warrior not saving us,” they muse.  Unable to answer the questions, they reassure themselves at the end of v. 9.  The phrase, “Yet you, O Yhwh, are in the midst of us” most certainly refers to the temple where it was assumed G-d lived.  This is quite important.  If Yhwh left the temple, those who ruled the politico-religious realm would no longer be able to use G-d’s presence as a scheme of power.  They finish off then with the cry for G-d not to leave them with words that are reminiscent of the doe leaving her fawn.

                Typically, we would expect the response of G-d to the people’s confession and praise to be an extension of forgiveness.  Judah is Yhwh’s people, and they are deeply sorry after all.  We see no such thing.  Instead, G-d completely rails on them in vv. 10-12.  They are the ones who are strangers, who are confused.  Yhwh proceeds to tell Jeremiah not to pray for them.  The prophet’s role in the Ancient Near East was to intercede for the people in order to stem divine wrath.  Yhwh tells Jeremiah not to try it.  Judah’s other options, burnt and gift offerings, will be rejected by G-d, as well.  Yhwh, in v. 12, graphically describes how Yhwh will consume the people as the offering.

                Jeremiah responds in v. 13.  His response serves two purposes.  In historical context, he seems confused.  Is this really the word of Yhwh?  All the other prophets are claiming peace.  Yhwh clears it up for Jeremiah in v. 14, reassuring him that he is in fact hearing the word of G-d.  When we read v. 13 now with historical perspective as to what ultimately happened to Judah, we see Jeremiah defending the people.  Jeremiah intercedes on their behalf pointing out that all the prophets lie in the name of Yhwh making the people confused.  All the people believe peace will come because their prophets say it will.  This leaves Judah without the sense of repentant urgency necessary to stem the forthcoming disaster.  Jeremiah’s work is enough to get Yhwh to promise not to punish everyone, but rather, Yhwh will punish only the prophets and their followers.

                Yhwh commands Jeremiah to tearfully connect the destruction with the leadership of the lying prophets in vv. 17-18.  The poetry is beautiful even in English. We feel the wounded G-d’s tears overflowing out of the “Weeping Prophet’s” eyes begging the people to abandon the ignorant, wandering priest and prophets.  The problems encountered in the field and the city describes a scene of war and siege, respectively.  Apparently, Judah endured the fate of battle yet still trusted in the leaders who caused the death in the first place.

                Judah’s response in the form of another lamentation rends my heart and seals their fate.  They begin questioning G-d’s faithfulness.  Rightfully, they believe Yhwh struck them down.  The peace promised by prophets is nowhere to be seen.  Peace has not happened; people are still dying.  They admit their sins; they come so close to finally understanding when they make a demand.  Act, Yhwh, for your name’s sake.  They did the same thing 14 verses earlier, and we saw the result.  They want G-d to act for G-d’s sake? No! They want G-d to act for their sake, and they use the covenant and G-d’s honor to try to get it.  “We had a deal, Yhwh,” they say.  “You cannot let this happen.”  It is ironic.  They confess their sins and proceed to commit them again.  They want G-d’s help without G-d’s law, and they will blame G-d if they do not get it.  “You cannot let this happen,” they say.  And in G-d’s silence at the end of ch. 14, as Judah worships the rainmaker, the one they want to see end the drought, the death from war, and the hunger that has consumed them, as they wait for Superman, we find Yhwh, betrayed, abandoned, manipulated, and wounded, responding, “Yes, I can let this happen.”

The Text Today

                Is the Church under the bus?  This text shows us two images.  First, it shows a person (Judah) standing in front of a moving bus asking G-d to be the hero for G-d’s own sake.  Second, we see Jeremiah come onto the scene and tell the person to move after the bus wreaked its damage.  Let me posit this hypothesis. The Church in the United States is, at the very least, standing in front of the bus.  Our feet love to wander.  We are incredibly fantastic at the parts of Judah’s lamentation involving confession of sins and praising of G-d as being powerful.  We do it by the millions every Sunday in massive megaplexes and stadiums that serve as preemptive mausoleums where we wait to be massacred out of our comfortable middle-class lives and transported to some ethereal dimension where we will be blessed with wealth, perfection, gluttony, and eternal boredom.  The priests and prophets who build these temples from Joel Osteen to Bill Hybels to Rick Warren to Mark Driscoll convince us that G-d’s covenant, no matter how badly you chase other gods, is something that can never be unbound.  Well I am here to tell you that if we do not learn from Jeremiah, we will be living in exile before long.  That bus is coming pretty fast.

                Perhaps we already saw it in Europe. I think we all know of the loss of faith there.  Yes, in that way, we see a sort of reversed situation.  Instead of imperialist Babylon dragging off Judah, the colonized continents took the faith of empire-builders and proceeded to redeem it.  We have seen the shift over the past century.  90% of the world’s Christians lived in the global North at the commencement of the 20^th century; by the 21^st, the vast majority shifted to the global South.  It seems G-d moved after growing tired of our imperial impulses, making our country, our prosperity, and our way of life the highest gods of all.  Our way forward can no longer be with the Jim Wallises and Pat Roberstons of the world who seek to form and shape public policy as the way to show G-d’s love and power.  Our way forward is to realize the truth: we’re about toe get hit by a bus.  The only safe place is with G-d, who probably looks kind of like the crazy homeless guy on the corner.  We get to G-d by joining in G-d’s woundedness, loving and healing each other in divine and human community.

WordPress and Messes of Ben

Hello friends!  I just want to let anyone who might read this blog that I also will be parallel posting on WordPress.  This will make it easier for me to follow my friends on WordPress (like Chauncey and Mike) and giving them a chance to subscribe to my blog, too.  Click on the title of this post to go to it.  Peace!

-ben adam

Dreamgirls and The Subjection of People Through Strip Clubs

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

My First Crack At Relating "Hook" to Important Things

Back in 1991, Steven Spielberg directed a film titled Hook starring Robin Williams, Julia Roberts, Maggie Smith, and the incomparable Dustin Hoffman as Captain Jas. Hook.  John Williams produced the soundtrack (to which I am currently listening).  Hook provides an intriguing twist on an extremely original tale, and I submit that the title is purposefully misleading.  The first line of J.M. Barrie's book, Peter Pan, states "All children, except one, grow up."  Hook begs the question, "What if that one grew up?"  Maintaining indefatigable continuity with the book, Peter (Robin Williams) comes to what we might call Reality and begins to grow old.  In the way that Neverland makes one forget about Reality, Reality makes one forget about Neverland.  Thus, there is a tension between the two.

The movie opens with Peter's complete consummation by Reality.  He appears as a successful lawyer who orchestrates business deals involving vasts amounts of money.  Nevertheless, his drive for success marginalizes his family.  On a family trip to England in order to visit "Grandma Wendy" (Maggie Smith) and after a mysterious Capt. Jas. Hook breaks into Wendy's home to kidnap Peter's two children, Maggie and Jack, Wendy reveals to Peter and to us who his true identity is, the Peter Pan.  Of course, he finds this completely preposterous, but when Tinker Bell (Julia Roberts) appears and drags him to Neverland, he must face the reality of his forgotten childhood.

In Neverland, Captain James Hook is furious.  Made clear by the film, Hook has been stewing for years over the absence of his "great and worthy opponent" Peter Pan.  Now, Hook, with Peter's kidnapped children in tow, will finally be able to launch his full out war on Peter and his lost boys.  Quite naturally, Peter Banning, whom Peter Pan has grown up to be, enters Neverland completely ignorant of his lost identity.  Confused by such a goofy world that is Neverland with its pirates, mermaids, and renegade, pirate-killing orphans, Peter halfheartedly attempts self-discovery for the sake of saving his children.  In the meanwhile, Hook turns Peter's son against him, and in normal Neverland fashion, Jack forgets about home.  As Jack forgets, Peter remembers; except, he remembers with a twist.  He remembers who he is, not because he recalls the features of Neverland, he remembers Neverland and his identity as Peter Pan because he recalls the joy he felt when he became a father.  The elation and new life of childhood reignites Peter's ability to fly and battle the incarnate evil, Captain Hook.

Before I finish telling the story, let me turn to the obvious quite obvious message behind this story.  At 2 hours and 20 minutes, Hook can hardly be considered a pure kid's movie (even though I watched it countless times as a child).  Instead, Hook is a film made for parents couched in a kid's film disguise.  As adults, what once carried the excitement of newness for us as kids gives way to the mundane product of experience and recognizable repetition.  Peter who once was capable of thinking imaginatively of newness, becomes bound by the restraint of what he knows.  This is made ever so clear when he tries to save his children by writing Hook a check or when he cannot eat simply because he cannot imagine food.  Hook, therefore, romanticizes childhood in an exciting, entertaining way.  At the same time, Captain Hook reminds us that childhood does not come without difficulties.

These struggles we face as children loomed large to us then.  The film humorously puts it to us in Hook and Peter's discourse as they fight their final battle:

Peter: "I remember you being a lot bigger."
Hook: "To a 10-year-old, I'm huge."

Now, Peter has returned to fight off his old foe once and for all.  Why?  No longer can he avoid it.  See, in Reality, Peter became a pirate with his corporate takeovers and hold-no-prisoners economics.  What happened?  He oppressed his family and his kids.  As a result, his son became a pirate, merciless and tyrannical.  The commentary here is explicit.  As adults, we must face and fight our childhood terrors.  We avoid them because we remember them being huge, but if we stave off the fight, we will become what oppressed us.  Consequently, the next generation will suffer from our Hooks.  Hence, the cycle is created.

Briefly, I would like to implicate the Hebrew Bible.  Clearly, the authors and compilers of Genesis recognized and theologized this cycle.  We can see it as the faithfulness of Abraham passes from generation to generation until Joseph.  Joseph becomes imperial, and he delivers his own people into the hands of the oppressors.  Notice the oddity of Jacob's blessing upon Joseph's two sons in Genesis 48.  Why does Jacob not reach out his hands and bless Joseph in the way Jacob's father did to him?  Jacob attempts to pass on the blessing to those not yet tainted by the oppressive empire.  Furthermore, this whole narrative is alluded to in the second word of the Decalogue in Exodus 20.4-6:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I YHWH your G-d am a jealous G-d, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

What we see in Hook is a father's idolization of that which is not the life-giving, creative G-d, and as a result, his children pay for it.  He then confronts that which oppressed him and a child (his idol), and defeated it.  It is to how he defeated it that I now turn.

Upon Peter's self-realization in the film, the pace quickens.  He forgets he is an adult, and he becomes consumed by the desires of being a young boy.  Immediately, the film clarifies.  Peter cannot save his kids if he believes he is a child.  The narrative presents Peter with a dilemma: how does one maintain the innocence of youth and the strength that one gains through the long process of growing up to fight the very demons of that youth?  Or put more metaphorically, how do we stay as big as Captain Hook yet as free as the lost boys?  The film gives us three answers: creativity, community, and evil's inoperable sustainability.

In the film, the Lost Boys are a precarious group of orphans who live under the constant threat of violence from the oppressive adult pirates.  Rendered unable to go where they wish or live as they please, the Lost Boys subvert the authoritarian rule of Hook using only their imagination.  Even eating requires them to utilize their imaginative power.  As a result, beneath the oppressive thumb of Hook and his cronies, the Lost Boys thrive.  Alas, when an adult who finally takes their side leads them in a rebellion against the oppressors, these disenfranchised orphans do not fight in shear numbers.  Instead, they fight with creative tools such as tomato-flinging slingshots, a four-direction paint gun, marbles, mirrors, and an egg-gun.  The plausibility of these weapons being deployed by children actually working against a contingent of armed, full-grown men is inconsequential and irrelevant.  The movie is disinterested in practicality.  Rather, it implies the creative efforts of the oppressed render the confidence of the powerful as a weakness.  Creativity overcomes physical power.

As Peter fights Captain Hook, he receives the aid of the Lost Boys.  Hook, you see, in a wonderful metaphor, fears time more than any other thing.  We see this in Peter's own life before he made it to Neverland.  He frantically attempts to work and support his son by attending his baseball game which Peter tragically misses.  He fights against time.  Captain Hook does likewise.  He finds sport in destroying clocks that tick; thus, reassuring himself that in fact time does not exist.  The film clearly responds to this with the affirmation of time.  When we embrace time as the conduit through which we live, we learn to actually enjoy life, the time we are given, and the people we spend it with.  There is no greater example to this than when Peter fights Hook in the final battle between good and evil.  As their ace in the hole, the Lost Boys pull out ticking clocks.  The over-stimulation of Hook's greatest fear paralyzes him, and the theme is driven home as he stands facing Peter in a circle of Lost Boys without any friends to help.  Peter understands the strength in his friends and family.  Hook, bent on vengeance, cannot allow the aid of his minimal friendships lest his revenge feel anything less than self-earned.  Only through the help of others can we in fact defeat what haunts us most.

The description of that scene leads to my final point.  Evil cannot sustain itself.  The moral logic of oppression leads the oppressor into lonely, self-destruction.  In a gut-wrenching, tear-jerking way, we see this in Rufio.  Rufio is the boy who took control of the Lost Boys in Peter Pan's absence. Dressed like a punk rocker, Rufio acquiesces to Hook's logic.  Hook hauntingly seduces Rufio into a blade-on-blade battle by slowly chanting his name right after Peter forbid Rufio from fighting the old man.  Rufio is shown as a good swordsman, but clearly, he is no match for the superb Captain Hook.  Rufio gives in to the promise of power that can be achieved through the death of Hook.  Effectively, Rufio tries to beat Hook at his own game.  Little does Rufio know, one cannot overcome evil with the tools of evil.  Rufio only realizes this after Hook slays him.  Dying in Peter's arms, Rufio (and I have to hold back tears thinking about it) says to Peter in a powerful last breath, "You know what I wish.  I wish I had a dad...like you."  The film drives the point home when the young Jack takes off his pirate's hat, addresses Peter as "Dad", and tells Peter, who still holds the dying Rufio in his arms, he wants to go home.  Creative, communal love creates home; evil tempts and destroys.  It cannot persist then, for it destroys that which it lures.

We see evil's demise at the conclusion of Peter's final (dare we say, loving) battle with his childhood foe.  The sword fight builds in the very typical way that all sword battles typically do.  Meanwhile, we wait for the very typical end.  We wait for Peter to be given the opportunity to kill Hook, yet in his goodness refuse.  Very surely, this time comes (twice actually), but Peter is rescued by the sweet innocence of his daughter.  Naturally, the next action is Hook trying to kill Peter even though Peter mercifully spared his life.  What we would quite expect is Peter to kill Hook, but this never happens.  Instead, a twist comes.  Peter, with the aid of Tinker Bell, thrusts the Captain's hook into the belly of the crocodile who consumed Hook's hand after Peter cut it off so many years ago.  While this could simply be seen as an homage to the book, the action suggests otherwise.  We see Hook stumble and stand with complete balance.  He seems completely able to avoid the crocodile who has awoken from the dead.  But he doesn't.  Why?  Perhaps it is because Hook longs for death.  Evil cannot endure forever; it cannot bear the weight of oppressing eternally.  Furthermore, evil is not indestructible.  Even it has fears such as time.  In the end, Hook's fear of the crocodile, his exhaustion of being vengeful, and his lost battle against time bring about his demise.  Peter's refusal to kill shows his victory, for he knows that evil will kill itself. 

In the end, we see the beauty of creativity, innocence, and community.  These are not weaknesses.  They are strength.  Unless we learn to embrace them as strength, we will continue to let Captain Hook and his violent, oppressive logic dominate every generation.  However, if we learn how to embrace the time we are given to live and if we enjoy those we are given to live it with, we may well learn to defeat Hook once and for all.  That is exactly what we see in Jesus' life and most clearly in Jesus' death and resurrection.  We cannot beat the oppressors on their own terms.  We can only reveal the natural demise of sin which is death.  We reveal this by showing the natural way of G-d which is life, and as Peter says at the very end of the film, "To live... to live would be an awfully big adventure."

An Article I Wrote After Colombia and Subsequently Forgot About

Conveying exactly what life is like in the Campo (the Colombian countryside) may prove difficult.  The distance between dirt-floor homes and fully-wired houses lies in more than geographical distance.  Understanding what occurs in small, Colombian, mountain hamlets will provide evidence concerning the complex issues of armed groups in the country. The problems involve remote, localized economies, a U.S.-funded Colombian military, powerful multinational mining corporations, and people struggling on all sides.  In this struggle, neutrality is impossible.  As nonviolent followers of G-d, we picked the side of the mining Campesinos (people from the countryside).  They are a forgotten people even though corporate greed and military might cannot forget the abundant resources they protect.

            For all the talk of creating small, local economies in progressive U.S. cities such as Portland or San Francisco, nothing in the States compares to the town in the Campo our small Christian Peacemaker Teams delegation visited.  As the miners pull raw material from the ground, they take 50% of the money made from the ores (gold, silver, lead, etc.).  The other 50% is given to the refinement workers who also have a mandatory minimum wage.  Others in the community farm on small plots of land, raise cattle, or run simple shops in order to support the region with goods.  Nearly all the money recycles through the town, sustaining it as well as the surrounding area.

            When talking with the leaders in the Campo, it becomes clear the government, in the past years, cared little for the region.  The roads, school, and other infrastructure projects received miniscule funding from Colombia’s governing bodies.  Presently, not much has changed.  While the residents lament the state’s lack of aid, they take pride in their own constructive efforts.  They boast of how they built a road, and they do not let you forget that they all pay to send their children to school.  No adequate healthcare exists in the region, despite their best efforts.  This area seems completely off the government’s map. 

            Oddly, in spite of governmental apathy toward the area’s basic necessities, upon former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s orders, a small contingency of soldiers established a base about a half mile from the town and a forward encampment no more than a football field away from the town plaza.  Interaction with the soldiers stationed at this base revealed to our delegation the army’s desire to protect the region from the leftist guerillas.  The security and protection of the Campesinos sounded like their primary objective.  A lieutenant intimated how their activity safeguarded the people.  Meanwhile, a man in the mines received a compound leg fracture after rocks tumbled onto him.  The nearest health center (not hospital) is three hours away across rocky, rough driving in the mud.  The nearest hospital where actual operations for serious injury can occur lies 11 hours away.  Under such conditions, a compound leg fracture can be fatal.

            Good thing no guerillas attacked.

            Is the Colombian government interested in the well-being of women and men living in the Campo?  The army seems to think so, but precedent begs to differ.  The Uribe presidency has been notorious for using military strength to displace Campesinos.  The numbers include a staggering average of 300,000 displaced people per year over the last 10 years.  Colombia ranks third in the world behind Afghanistan and Sudan in total volume of internally displaced people with over 4 million.  Typically, these displacements are done “legally” under the theory that in the city, the people will enjoy the benefits of improved infrastructure.  Once the people are out of the way and safe in the big, unfamiliar city, the land left behind by these displaced groups becomes subject to transnational corporations who exploit the resources and export the profits.              What is more, the place we visited sits at the base of a mountain that may contain the largest gold reserves in Colombia.  In the surrounding areas, a Canadian-based multinational mining corporation, AngloGold Ashanti, has been receiving large quantities of land concessions from the Colombian government.  The largest gold reserve in the country cannot be far off their radar.  The combination of a military base applying pressure, poor health and education due to subpar infrastructure, a powerful multinational seeking gold, a huge quantity of gold, and a history of internal displacement might make the perfect formula for driving these artisan workers off their land, out of their homes, and into the growing population of unemployed city dwellers.

            Can this be stopped?  We certainly hope it can.  Nevertheless, in this potent situation, we see only a microcosm of the greater issue.  The prevailing winds of the new so-called global economy places profits as higher values than people.  Thus, even violence is permissible when securing new capital.  The answer to the question, “Can this be stopped?” is a simple “Yes,” but only when we stop.  If we in the global North cease our exuberant habits and live simply, the violence in Colombia may begin to end.  When people not profits become the highest value, perhaps Colombia’s government will provide for the poorest of the poor rather than force them into urban unemployment.  The time has come for us to realize our own complicity in violence under the auspices of making a better life for ourselves.  The time has come for us to realize peace can only occur when the only violence is the destruction of our own desire for material wealth and satisfaction.

-ben adam