BEWARE: RANT FOLLOWS.
People. GRRR!!!
You have one good friend complaining because she hasn't had any submissions for her student newspaper agony aunt column, so you take something from your life, spin it out a bit, indulge in a bit of hyperbole for a laff, make sure no names are named and send it in, then forget all about it.
Some weeks later you get another friend bawling her eyes out because you wrote about her (even though you didn't use her name or sign it with your own name), she takes what she reads in a student newspaper way too seriously - a student newspaper that is full of tongue-in-cheek humour - and she's completely blown it out of proportion and is calling you horrible, petty and immature. Even though she wasn't mentioned explicitly she say's it's obvious it's about her, when after a little probing it becomes apparent that somebody else told her it was about her.
At first she won't even agree to talk to you about it in person but attacks you by text, you apologise sincerely, saying that you're very sorry that she's upset but that that was never the intention and suggesting that perhaps she's taking it a little too seriously. It is, after all, just a trashy student paper and it was written somewhat humourously. She agrees to meet with you in a few days time to talk it over, and then her Significant Other gets stuck in. CHRIST!!
Then you get home and find out that she's been bawling her eyes out to your flatmate in your absence, and he seems to be actually ENJOYING this!! You determine that you have to find out exactly what happened by speaking to the editor of the paper, who knows the offended party personally (though not all that well, or so you think), and your friend who writes the agony aunt column (who she doesn't really know at all, to the best of your knowledge), to see if you can work out who's been sh*t-stirring. You then decide that you're no longer comfortable in your flat and should start seriously thinking about moving out ASAP.
It's enough to make you give up writing for trashy student papers.
It's enough to make you give up on people.
>:(
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Ok, Ok, So I'm A Geek...
A bunch of LOTR nerds got together not too long ago to film one of the segments of the story's narrative that was 'missing' from Peter Jackson's movie trilogy. It's pretty well done, considering the small budget and the fact that these aren't the actors we're all familiar with... check it out at
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/player_film-youtube.htm
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/player_film-youtube.htm
The Role of Women in Early Christianity
by DannyR
Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).
All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).
This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.
Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).
Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).
Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).
In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).
But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,
Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).
Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).
Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.
Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.
To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.
D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.
Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.
Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.
Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).
All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).
This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.
Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).
Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).
Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).
In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).
But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,
Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).
Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).
Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.
Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.
To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.
D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.
Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.
Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.
Feminism: Its History and Ongoing Influence on Religious Studies
by DannyR
“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).
Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.
In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.
Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.
Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).
Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).
The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).
Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.
To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”
References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).
Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.
King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.
Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.
“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).
Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.
In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.
Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.
Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).
Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).
The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).
Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.
To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”
References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).
Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.
King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.
Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.
Maori Cultural Nationalism
by DannyR
Evan Te Ahu Poata-Smith’s He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest (1996) analyses the Maori cultural renaissance and political movement since the 1970s, highlighting the rise of Maori cultural nationalism and identifying its failures. The following outlines these failures and explores the validity of Poata-Smith’s analysis, concluding that while the focus on Maori identity has indeed brought about positive changes in New Zealand society, it is debatable whether these advances are in fact outweighed by the shortcomings of cultural nationalism.
Maori cultural nationalism has been primarily concerned with enabling Maori studies and language to be taught in schools, and with gaining recognition in public institutions and policies for the existence and concerns of Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.106). Poata-Smith does not deny that the rediscovery and preservation of Maori culture is important, however he is highly critical of the shift within the Maori rights movement since the 1980s toward the emphasis on Maori identity and culture over political demonstration. Chief among Poata-Smith’s criticisms are that the rediscovery of Maori culture has superseded demonstrations for Maori rights and systemic change, that rhetoric around Maori identity obscures the sometimes significant differences in the actual experiences of Maori people, that the movement fails to challenge the capitalist system that creates the inequalities between Maori and Pakeha, and indeed between Maori of different socio-economic classes, and that the increasing autonomy of the Maori movement limits its effectiveness.
Cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, p.106-107, 113) argues, is a substitute for political activism and actual systemic change; its emphasis on changing individual lifestyles and developing individual Maori identity as the antidote to the ills inflicted by Pakeha society actually leads to people being less political. No Maori movement has been built on a foundation of cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, pp.113-114) notes, nevertheless the ideas and language of cultural nationalism have been adopted by Maori social movements and have inhibited activism and political involvement.
A second criticism of Maori cultural nationalism is that it treats Maori as a unified, homogenous group; from the poorest to the richest, Maori experience is assumed to be the same (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). There is no recognition that middle-class Maori have the same sort of privileges relative to working-class Maori that Pakeha middle-class people have relative to Pakeha working-class people. Cultural nationalism also fails to recognise that Maori are not and have never been one homogenous people; generational, gender and tribal differences have always existed, and these are often in conflict (McLennan et al., 2004, p.204; Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158; Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). This assumption that there is one true Maori identity encourages Maori to fight over what constitutes ‘authentic’ Maori identity, failing to acknowledge that personal identities are embedded in historical contexts, that identities change over time, and that individuals often identify with multiple groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Similarly, cultural nationalists assume that Pakeha are one homogenous group and characterise them as the enemy of Maori, inherently and irredeemably greedy and exploitative, even those who would be allies (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.113). The emphasis on individual identity personalises the conflict, and thus Pakeha people and their presence in Aotearoa become the problem, rather than the capitalist system that perpetrates the inequalities between these groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112).
A further criticism levelled at cultural nationalism is that it has eliminated solidarity between Maori and other oppressed groups, its proponents have advocated the creation and maintenance of an autonomous Maori movement, based on the idea that Pakeha and other non-Maori cannot understand the oppression suffered by Maori people and should therefore be excluded. Poata-Smith (1996, p.107) notes that Donna Awatere and other Maori academics attacked and alienated other Left-wing social movements with accusations that these groups profited by and were in fact predicated on the exploitation of Maori, rather than gunning for the Right and the class system that created the inequalities in the first place. By excluding Pakeha, Poata-Smith (1996, p.114-115) argues, the Maori movement limits itself, depriving itself of Pakehas’ greater access to resources and channels of influence, and swinging from Left to Right policies and ideologies in an absence of any actual power to create change. Maori autonomy allows middle-class interests to hijack the movement and ensure that working-class concerns remain marginal, thus robbing the movement of its power to actually improve the lives of the very people who most need its advocacy (Poata-Smith, 1996, 115).
Poata-Smith (1996, pp.107-109) charges the Maori elite with complicity, in that they consistently fail to challenge the exploitative capitalist economic system that disadvantages Maori. This elite is made up of academics and corporate bosses, wealthy middle-class people employed by the Labour government of the mid-90s to simultaneously push for Maori interests and support the status quo; rewarded with opportunity, prestige and wealth, and thus effectively divorced from the realities of working-class life that the majority of Maori experience (McLennan et al., 2004, pp. 143, 208; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.109-110). Poata-Smith notes that since the 1980’s the Maori movement has fought for precisely the political changes that benefit these already wealthy, middle-class Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Poata-Smith’s analysis is correct on a number of points. In his assertion that Maori identity was unheard-of prior to European colonisation he is supported by Durie (1998, pp.53-55) and Sir Tipene O’Reagan (Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158), among others. He is also undoubtedly correct in asserting that the rediscovery of Maori heritage is valuable, but that it does not guarantee change in the present and future on its own, and therefore cannot be an end in itself. If action does not follow inspiration, all that will be accomplished is increased anger and resentment over past injustices, which will in turn make Maori people less inclined to engage with the problem in future.
Poata-Smith recognises that this rediscovery of Maori heritage is intended to enable a person to take action, but notes that this action is essentially individual, that is, increased Maori self-identification leads only to changes in one’s own lifestyle. The idea is that if more people are more ‘authentically’ Maori, they will make personal political choices consistent with that identity and in so doing influence the building of a society that is fair to Maori. This approach limits the spread of political discourse through society; individual choices in isolation make little differences in large populations, and clearly attempts at one-on-one persuasion will not be nearly as effective as an organised campaign to reach as many people as possible. Cultural nationalism, with its emphasis on individual identity and choice, fails to address larger, structural inequalities between Maori and Pakeha and ultimately renders Maori protest ineffective (Sissons, 1993).
Poata-Smith is also right to object to cultural nationalists’ insistence on the autonomy of the Maori movement, it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it. Clearly there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16), those that do not may be those who are unfamiliar with the issues facing Maori or those who are engaged in the promulgation of the dominant narrative, that Maori are receiving ‘special treatment,’ that they are lazy and so on; either way the Maori movement has failed to impress upon such people the extent of the difficulties faced by Maori people (Melbourne, 1995, p.160).
Of course there are other possible explanations for Pakeha indifference, certainly many Pakeha also feel disenfranchised and exploited and are perhaps too preoccupied with their own struggles. Spoonley (1995, pp.99, 110) notes that ‘Pakeha’ is itself an ambiguous and contested term and suggests that Pakeha are still in the process of making the awkward transition from seeing themselves as having been colonised and exploited by the British to seeing themselves as the colonisers, and thus they may not yet fully appreciate the Maori perspective.
It follows that Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115). It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. Certainly traditional Maori ways of life are alien to the Pakeha majority, Maori language and cultural expression having been all but banned from schools for the greater part of the twentieth century (McLennan et al., 2004, p.201).
There are points with which we might take issue in Poata-Smith’s analysis, however. A first objection is the unsupported assertion that cultural nationalists see the differences between Maori and Pakeha as biologically based (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112). He posits that racism is instead a product of capitalism, but does not make these links explicit. McLennan et al. (2004, pp.208-209) suggest that Maori disadvantage is due to New Zealand’s colonial history combined with the capitalist incorporation of Maori into the working-class. European colonisers thus came in, took over, deprived the native peoples and forced them into low-paid labouring jobs, and then interpreted their relative poverty as proof that Maori are racially inferior or just plain lazy.
Poata-Smith also questions the validity of a singular Maori identity, given that there are great disparities between tribes, genders, classes and the like, but others argue that this innovation is not necessarily a bad thing, as a great many Maori now live in cities and see their class as more important to their identity than their tribal affiliation. Some of these people do not have access to the traditional Maori world of marae and iwi, and so cultural nationalism allows them to retain a sense of connection with their ancestry in a way that they feel is relevant (Durie, 1998, pp.57-59). Sissons (1993) notes that Maori identity has such beneficial effects as improved self-esteem on the individual level and more harmonious relations at the group level. Others note that indigenous cultural revivals around the world are important precursors to community construction and mobilization (Najel, 1998, pp.252-253).
Lastly, it should be noted that subsequent to the publication of He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest, New Zealand has undergone significant changes to its political systems, going so far as to institute Maori seats in Parliament. Future research should examine the extent to which these changes exacerbate or compensate for the problems identified by Poata-Smith.
In conclusion, cultural nationalism has contributed in a number of positive ways to New Zealand society, and to Maori in particular, and can be seen as an important element in the movement for Maori equality. It is not, however, without significant problems, most importantly that it dissuades Maori from engaging in political activism, alienates the Maori movement from similar social movements that would otherwise be its allies, fails to recognise the sometimes substantial differences in the interests of those it claims to represent, and ultimately fails to challenge the system that creates the very inequalities in society that it purports to fight.
References
Durie, M. (1998). Mana Tupuna, identity and heritage. Te Mana, Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Najel, J. (1998). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. In M. W. Hughey (ed.) New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicity (pp.237-272). New York: New York University Press.
Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (eds.) Nga Patai:Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Sissons, J. (1993). The systemisation of tradition: Maori culture as a strategic resource. Oceania, 64(2), 97-116.
Spoonley, P. (1995). Constructing ourselves: The postcolonial politics of Pakeha. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds.) Justice and identity: Antipodean practices (pp.96-115). New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
Evan Te Ahu Poata-Smith’s He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest (1996) analyses the Maori cultural renaissance and political movement since the 1970s, highlighting the rise of Maori cultural nationalism and identifying its failures. The following outlines these failures and explores the validity of Poata-Smith’s analysis, concluding that while the focus on Maori identity has indeed brought about positive changes in New Zealand society, it is debatable whether these advances are in fact outweighed by the shortcomings of cultural nationalism.
Maori cultural nationalism has been primarily concerned with enabling Maori studies and language to be taught in schools, and with gaining recognition in public institutions and policies for the existence and concerns of Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.106). Poata-Smith does not deny that the rediscovery and preservation of Maori culture is important, however he is highly critical of the shift within the Maori rights movement since the 1980s toward the emphasis on Maori identity and culture over political demonstration. Chief among Poata-Smith’s criticisms are that the rediscovery of Maori culture has superseded demonstrations for Maori rights and systemic change, that rhetoric around Maori identity obscures the sometimes significant differences in the actual experiences of Maori people, that the movement fails to challenge the capitalist system that creates the inequalities between Maori and Pakeha, and indeed between Maori of different socio-economic classes, and that the increasing autonomy of the Maori movement limits its effectiveness.
Cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, p.106-107, 113) argues, is a substitute for political activism and actual systemic change; its emphasis on changing individual lifestyles and developing individual Maori identity as the antidote to the ills inflicted by Pakeha society actually leads to people being less political. No Maori movement has been built on a foundation of cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, pp.113-114) notes, nevertheless the ideas and language of cultural nationalism have been adopted by Maori social movements and have inhibited activism and political involvement.
A second criticism of Maori cultural nationalism is that it treats Maori as a unified, homogenous group; from the poorest to the richest, Maori experience is assumed to be the same (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). There is no recognition that middle-class Maori have the same sort of privileges relative to working-class Maori that Pakeha middle-class people have relative to Pakeha working-class people. Cultural nationalism also fails to recognise that Maori are not and have never been one homogenous people; generational, gender and tribal differences have always existed, and these are often in conflict (McLennan et al., 2004, p.204; Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158; Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). This assumption that there is one true Maori identity encourages Maori to fight over what constitutes ‘authentic’ Maori identity, failing to acknowledge that personal identities are embedded in historical contexts, that identities change over time, and that individuals often identify with multiple groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Similarly, cultural nationalists assume that Pakeha are one homogenous group and characterise them as the enemy of Maori, inherently and irredeemably greedy and exploitative, even those who would be allies (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.113). The emphasis on individual identity personalises the conflict, and thus Pakeha people and their presence in Aotearoa become the problem, rather than the capitalist system that perpetrates the inequalities between these groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112).
A further criticism levelled at cultural nationalism is that it has eliminated solidarity between Maori and other oppressed groups, its proponents have advocated the creation and maintenance of an autonomous Maori movement, based on the idea that Pakeha and other non-Maori cannot understand the oppression suffered by Maori people and should therefore be excluded. Poata-Smith (1996, p.107) notes that Donna Awatere and other Maori academics attacked and alienated other Left-wing social movements with accusations that these groups profited by and were in fact predicated on the exploitation of Maori, rather than gunning for the Right and the class system that created the inequalities in the first place. By excluding Pakeha, Poata-Smith (1996, p.114-115) argues, the Maori movement limits itself, depriving itself of Pakehas’ greater access to resources and channels of influence, and swinging from Left to Right policies and ideologies in an absence of any actual power to create change. Maori autonomy allows middle-class interests to hijack the movement and ensure that working-class concerns remain marginal, thus robbing the movement of its power to actually improve the lives of the very people who most need its advocacy (Poata-Smith, 1996, 115).
Poata-Smith (1996, pp.107-109) charges the Maori elite with complicity, in that they consistently fail to challenge the exploitative capitalist economic system that disadvantages Maori. This elite is made up of academics and corporate bosses, wealthy middle-class people employed by the Labour government of the mid-90s to simultaneously push for Maori interests and support the status quo; rewarded with opportunity, prestige and wealth, and thus effectively divorced from the realities of working-class life that the majority of Maori experience (McLennan et al., 2004, pp. 143, 208; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.109-110). Poata-Smith notes that since the 1980’s the Maori movement has fought for precisely the political changes that benefit these already wealthy, middle-class Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Poata-Smith’s analysis is correct on a number of points. In his assertion that Maori identity was unheard-of prior to European colonisation he is supported by Durie (1998, pp.53-55) and Sir Tipene O’Reagan (Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158), among others. He is also undoubtedly correct in asserting that the rediscovery of Maori heritage is valuable, but that it does not guarantee change in the present and future on its own, and therefore cannot be an end in itself. If action does not follow inspiration, all that will be accomplished is increased anger and resentment over past injustices, which will in turn make Maori people less inclined to engage with the problem in future.
Poata-Smith recognises that this rediscovery of Maori heritage is intended to enable a person to take action, but notes that this action is essentially individual, that is, increased Maori self-identification leads only to changes in one’s own lifestyle. The idea is that if more people are more ‘authentically’ Maori, they will make personal political choices consistent with that identity and in so doing influence the building of a society that is fair to Maori. This approach limits the spread of political discourse through society; individual choices in isolation make little differences in large populations, and clearly attempts at one-on-one persuasion will not be nearly as effective as an organised campaign to reach as many people as possible. Cultural nationalism, with its emphasis on individual identity and choice, fails to address larger, structural inequalities between Maori and Pakeha and ultimately renders Maori protest ineffective (Sissons, 1993).
Poata-Smith is also right to object to cultural nationalists’ insistence on the autonomy of the Maori movement, it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it. Clearly there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16), those that do not may be those who are unfamiliar with the issues facing Maori or those who are engaged in the promulgation of the dominant narrative, that Maori are receiving ‘special treatment,’ that they are lazy and so on; either way the Maori movement has failed to impress upon such people the extent of the difficulties faced by Maori people (Melbourne, 1995, p.160).
Of course there are other possible explanations for Pakeha indifference, certainly many Pakeha also feel disenfranchised and exploited and are perhaps too preoccupied with their own struggles. Spoonley (1995, pp.99, 110) notes that ‘Pakeha’ is itself an ambiguous and contested term and suggests that Pakeha are still in the process of making the awkward transition from seeing themselves as having been colonised and exploited by the British to seeing themselves as the colonisers, and thus they may not yet fully appreciate the Maori perspective.
It follows that Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115). It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. Certainly traditional Maori ways of life are alien to the Pakeha majority, Maori language and cultural expression having been all but banned from schools for the greater part of the twentieth century (McLennan et al., 2004, p.201).
There are points with which we might take issue in Poata-Smith’s analysis, however. A first objection is the unsupported assertion that cultural nationalists see the differences between Maori and Pakeha as biologically based (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112). He posits that racism is instead a product of capitalism, but does not make these links explicit. McLennan et al. (2004, pp.208-209) suggest that Maori disadvantage is due to New Zealand’s colonial history combined with the capitalist incorporation of Maori into the working-class. European colonisers thus came in, took over, deprived the native peoples and forced them into low-paid labouring jobs, and then interpreted their relative poverty as proof that Maori are racially inferior or just plain lazy.
Poata-Smith also questions the validity of a singular Maori identity, given that there are great disparities between tribes, genders, classes and the like, but others argue that this innovation is not necessarily a bad thing, as a great many Maori now live in cities and see their class as more important to their identity than their tribal affiliation. Some of these people do not have access to the traditional Maori world of marae and iwi, and so cultural nationalism allows them to retain a sense of connection with their ancestry in a way that they feel is relevant (Durie, 1998, pp.57-59). Sissons (1993) notes that Maori identity has such beneficial effects as improved self-esteem on the individual level and more harmonious relations at the group level. Others note that indigenous cultural revivals around the world are important precursors to community construction and mobilization (Najel, 1998, pp.252-253).
Lastly, it should be noted that subsequent to the publication of He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest, New Zealand has undergone significant changes to its political systems, going so far as to institute Maori seats in Parliament. Future research should examine the extent to which these changes exacerbate or compensate for the problems identified by Poata-Smith.
In conclusion, cultural nationalism has contributed in a number of positive ways to New Zealand society, and to Maori in particular, and can be seen as an important element in the movement for Maori equality. It is not, however, without significant problems, most importantly that it dissuades Maori from engaging in political activism, alienates the Maori movement from similar social movements that would otherwise be its allies, fails to recognise the sometimes substantial differences in the interests of those it claims to represent, and ultimately fails to challenge the system that creates the very inequalities in society that it purports to fight.
References
Durie, M. (1998). Mana Tupuna, identity and heritage. Te Mana, Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Najel, J. (1998). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. In M. W. Hughey (ed.) New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicity (pp.237-272). New York: New York University Press.
Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (eds.) Nga Patai:Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Sissons, J. (1993). The systemisation of tradition: Maori culture as a strategic resource. Oceania, 64(2), 97-116.
Spoonley, P. (1995). Constructing ourselves: The postcolonial politics of Pakeha. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds.) Justice and identity: Antipodean practices (pp.96-115). New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
How Useful Is It To Talk About 'The Family' In The Singular?
by DannyR
There is, in this day and age, a great deal of political debate around what is best for ‘the family’ in our society and how it must be protected from an erosion of values. Sociology has much to offer in this debate, and yet to do so, it must be clear what is meant by ‘family.’ How useful is it, then, to talk about ‘the family’ in the singular? The following will argue that this usage obscures differences and divisions both between families and within families, and that as such, it is more appropriate in sociological discourse to speak of families, acknowledging the diversity of family forms both cross-culturally and within Western society, while recognizing that despite their differences, family is still a central organizing feature of most people’s lives.
In Western society, the terms ‘family’ and ‘family life’ are generally assumed to refer to the now-traditional nuclear family model. Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5) defines a ‘nuclear family’ as a legally married heterosexual couple and their children, a unit that regards itself as and is regarded by others as separate from wider society. ‘Family’ then, in mainstream Western society at least, usually refers to ‘Mum, Dad and the kids’. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are generally considered ‘extended family.’ This nuclear family model has been institutionalised in political and academic discourse, being considered the norm even within sociological schools, particularly functionalism.
Functionalists argue that this nuclear family model prevails in Western society because it is functional, i.e.: it is the model that best meets the needs of the modern industrial society in that, being small and less bound to the maintenance of extended family ties, it is more geographically mobile and can therefore meet the changing demands of the industrial economy (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, et al., 1996, p.487). More significantly, the nuclear family has become the place where individuals have their needs for intimacy, meaning, and emotional support met. Intimacy may be defined as “close association and privileged knowledge, empathy and understanding, love and care” (Jamieson, 1998, p.98). More practically, as the primary welfare institution through which individuals are expected to have their health and nutritional needs catered to, ‘the family’ reduces these burdens on society (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004 p.80).
A first objection to speaking of ‘the family’ is that this implies that a family is a unit. Individuals within a family do not act collectively, or even necessarily share the same values or goals, and even within the nuclear family model husband and wife have clearly differentiated gendered roles in regard to providing for and supporting family members. The father/husband is assumed to act as protector, provider and leader, the mother/wife as homebound nurturer and housekeeper, and their children are expected to be obedient and learn from their parents the roles they will perform when they themselves have matured (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, p.80). The nuclear family is divided along gender and generational lines, and this fact is obscured by referring to ‘the family’ in the singular.
Structuralists including Marxists and feminists see ‘the family’ as a place of conflict and power struggles. Feminists argue that in the nuclear family women are “systematically disadvantaged,” and that men’s power in society both derives from and is reinforced by their privileged position in the home (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2006, p.81). Men, as the breadwinners and decision makers, have control over the distribution of income within the home, and the institution of ‘the family’ puts women and children in a position of dependency. The division of labour in ‘the family’ favours men, as women do a greater share of the housework, are expected to provide sex, produce children and be the primary caregiver, all for little material recompense – thus for feminists, the family is essentially an institution by which men maintain power over and exploit women.
Marxists have traditionally considered ‘the family’ a fundamental institution of capitalist society, one that refreshes and renews workers without the state having to pay for it, and also produces and socialises children to fulfil the roles modelled by their parents, thereby ensuring a continual supply of workers (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2004, pp.80-81). For Marxists, ‘the family’ is the basic unit upon which industrial society is built, for in trading their labour for wages with which to provide for their families the working class supports the economy (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones et al., 1996, p. 510). This ‘political economy’ approach asserts that it is society that shapes the family and all the interpersonal relationships within it, and those between it and the outside world, that in fact individuals are not in control of their intimate lives, rather their lives are predicated on class and wealth (Baker, 2001, pp.70-72).
Structuralist and functionalist understandings of ‘the family’ as essentially nuclear, while highly influential in the twentieth century, are problematic in that they assume the ubiquity of the nuclear family model, presupposing an essential basic family unit discernable at all times in all cultures. Clearly this is not the case: historically, notions of ‘the family’ have changed significantly even within Western society, and even the briefest survey of other cultures reveals that there are many diverse understandings of what constitutes ‘family’ across the globe. Jamieson (1998, pp.17-20) describes the evolution of the family in Western society, noting that in the pre-modern/pre-industrial times, families were characterised by a lack of privacy, and that intimacy was tempered by the restrictions of hierarchy based on age and gender. Furthermore, children were not “cherished” or protected as they are today; rather, they were treated as adults and sent out into the workforce to provide extra income. It was only in the modern industrial period that expectations of intimacy and privacy came to be associated with the family, as with family households no longer the primary site of production, marriage and parenthood came to be viewed as more about individuals’ emotional lives.
Marriage, in particular, came to be seen as a source of renewal, support and empathy, in a time where the division of labour in families became more rigidly gendered, with men expected to be the breadwinner, and women the primary caregivers. Having outlined these changes, Jamieson (1998, pp.17-20) goes on to describe two interpretations of the post-modern family, an optimistic appraisal in which the attainment of good relationships, characterised by empathy and understanding, is seen as more important than conventional marriage, where individuals are free to negotiate their own rules around the division of labour and sexual conduct; and a pessimistic appraisal, in which a prevailing ethos of individualism and consumerism in fact isolates people and prevents the attainment of intimacy. Jamieson’s description illustrates that family and household dynamics within Western society have varied over time, and that speaking of ‘the family’ in the singular obscures this historical development.
A second objection is that speaking of ‘the family’ ignores the sometimes substantial differences between families even within mainstream Western society. Even to the lay person, ‘family’ will mean different things depending on her or his own cultural and class background, age and gender (Baker, 2001, p.244). The concept of ‘the family’ does not take account of the changing realities of people’s lives: children grow up and move out into flats, parents separate or spouses die, and thus even nuclear families change over time. There are step-families, single-parent families, adoptive families, married couples and de facto couples which may or may not have or choose to have children. There are also families where the grandparents live in the household, households comprised of unmarried adult siblings, and even polyamorous families in which adults may have more than one romantic relationship concurrently, living as a ‘triple,’ a ‘V’ or in some other non-monogamous arrangement (Barker, 2005, pp.75-88; Bettinger, 2006, p.161).
The heterosexual romantic couple is not necessarily the core of a family unit in contemporary Western society, as gay and lesbian families which may be any combination of the above variations on the theme of ‘family’ are increasingly recognised as acceptable alternatives. Cheal (2002, p.6) notes that the increasing incidence of homosexual cohabitation being recognized as ‘family’ is part of a wider trend of societal acceptance and legal recognition of non-married long-term relationships, while others see these kinds of ‘families of choice’ as inevitable in late modernity (Weeks, 2002, p.218). This listing of exceptions to the nuclear family model is by no means exhaustive, and yet it illustrates the inadequacy of the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm. Referring to ‘the family’ obscures the differences between these families and suggests that there is something dysfunctional or deficient about families that don’t match the norm.
A third objection to the conflation of ‘the family’ with the nuclear family model is that it ignores the many variations of family structure that can be observed in other cultures, the nuclear family is culturally specific and therefore cannot be generalised (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, pp.80-81). This failure to acknowledge the diversity of family structures in other cultures wrongly implies that the social structure and composition of Western society is in fact the norm, and thus that any society that deviates from these norms is pathological or dysfunctional. And yet there are any number of ‘functional’ alternatives to the nuclear family model in other cultures; such as the Hamula of Palestine, described by Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5), where ‘family’ consists of any number of men, related to one another by descent from a common ancestor, living hierarchically in the same village, each the head of a household consisting of wives and children. Closer to home, there are the ‘extended families’ of Polynesian cultures, such as the Maori whanau, in which family members have their emotional and material needs met by close-knit intergenerational kin networks. Even so, the fact remains that most of us organise our lives around some idea of family: Jamieson (1998, p.100) and Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5) both note that conventional nuclear family life is still seen by many in Western society as an ideal to aspire to. Additionally, there seems to exist something like ‘family’ in all societies and cultures – across the world humans court, marry, cooperate economically, raise children, and trace their lines of descent (Baker p.244).
In recognition of this, contemporary sociological definitions of family are notably unspecific and broad. Cheal (2002, p.4) for instance acknowledges that no one definition of family works in all contexts, and accordingly defines ‘family’ as a large or small group of people, who are in intimate relationships with one another that last over time and across generations. Symbolic interactionist interpretations, in stark contrast to structuralist and functionalist views of family, define a family as a set of relationships negotiated and constructed by individuals, rather than a ubiquitous set of pre-existing roles that people come to inhabit, the emphasis being on the processes of interaction, rather than on social structures and functions (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, pp.81-82).
In sum, sociological discourse should not presuppose the ubiquity of the nuclear family model, but rather must acknowledge that what we in Western society have come to think of as ‘the family’ is in reality no more than a set of ideas or an ideological construct firmly grounded in our own cultural history and bound to our own expectations of generational and gender roles. Consequently, sociological definitions of family life must make allowance for the diverse ways in which individuals structure their family lives, and as such references to ‘the family’ in sociological discourse should be avoided. Where the terms ‘the family’ or ‘family life’ are employed, they must then be understood to encompass the wide diversity of family forms found across time, cultures and even within our own society.
References
Baker, M. (2001). Families, labour and love: Family diversity in a changing world. Crow’s Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Barker, M. (2005). ‘This is my partner, and this is my… partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world.’ Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), 75-88.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M. & Webster, A. (1996). Theorising modern family life. In Introductory Sociology (3rd ed.). (pp. 479- 524). Macmillan Press: London.
Cheal, D. (2002). Introduction: Asking questions. In Sociology of family life (pp.1- 17). Basingstoke: Palgrave publishers.
Giddens, A. (1997). ‘Family, marriage and personal life’ in Sociology (3rd ed.). Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.139-170.
Jamieson, L. (1998). From ‘the family’ to sex and intimacy. Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies (pp.15-42). Cambridge: Polity Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). ‘Family Life’ in Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Weeks, J. (2002). Elective families: Lesbian and gay life experiments. In Alan Carling, Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards (Eds.) Analysing families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice, pp. 218-228. Routledge, London.
Jamieson, L. (1998). From ‘the family’ to sex and intimacy. Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies (pp.15-42). Cambridge: Polity Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). ‘Family Life’ in Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Weeks, J. (2002). Elective families: Lesbian and gay life experiments. In Alan Carling, Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards (Eds.) Analysing families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice, pp. 218-228. Routledge, London.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Art of Falling in Love (Harriet Swain)
[Reprinted from The Guardian]
Falling in love is one of the main perks of being a student. Never again are you likely to find such a wide selection of potential mates all in one place, or spend so much time gazing into each other's textbooks.
First though, there are a few people you must try not to fall in love with. These include: your best friend's ex, your flatmate, your flatmate's ex, your personal tutor, your tutor's spouse, the university chaplain.
It takes between 90 seconds and four minutes to decide if you fancy someone. In fact, according to research by psychologist Arthur Arun, if you spend half an hour sharing intimate details of your lives with a complete stranger and then four minutes staring deeply into their eyes, it is possible to fancy almost anyone. See the above list of lovers-to-avoid, and avert your gaze.
Only 7% of feeling attracted to someone has anything to do with what they say. This may be reassuring if you find every time you meet the object of your affections you talk complete gibberish.
Once you fall in love, it is a good idea to make sure the other person falls in love with you. Why not suggest bungee jumping as the first date? No, really. It has been proved that people easily confuse sexual arousal with downright terror. They will think they are madly in love when in fact they are worried about smashing their head on a large rock.
Alternatively, you could try cooking a candlelit dinner. Candles make your pupils dilate, which is another sign of arousal. Do make sure you can cook, though, as people are unlikely to confuse food poisoning with love.
If your date offers to cook for you, say how delicious it all was. Compliments make people feel good about themselves and more inclined to feel good about you. Then fill up their glass, and look deeply into their eyes. Again.
Writing poetry is nice, unless your beloved is studying English literature, in which case you'll be facing strong competition from the likes of William Shakespeare and John Donne. Unfortunately for scientists, equations are rarely an acceptable alternative.
Once you love each other, you are likely to start mirroring each other's movements, such as not turning up to lectures early in the morning. You may also start talking constantly about your lover, and snogging on the sofa while your flatmates are trying to watch telly. This will make you intensely annoying to everyone else, but you probably won't even notice. In any case, you can't help it. Scientists have shown falling in love is like a form of obsessive compulsive disorder, without the constant housework.
Meanwhile, if you've not managed to stare at a stranger long enough to clinch a date by Valentine's Day, don't despair. You can always mirror your professors and fall in love with your subject.
Why Danny H8s teh Gay
My gay boyfriend recently asked me, half-jokingly, how I reconcile my utter rejection of ‘gay’ identity with the fact that I’m in a relationship with him. This article won’t make me popular but I’ll give my response here anyway, as I was (lovingly) cut off when I got into it.
Where to start??
I just hate the binary model of sexuality that ‘gay’ identity reinforces. We see it everywhere, in the papers, on TV, in films and books and public debates: you’re either straight or you’re gay. And it’s not just that the mainstream isn’t aware of the alternatives, the gay media itself promotes this simplistic and offensive view. I mean, my god, Ari Benderski of Gay.com even went so far recently as to state that male bisexuality cannot exist! I’m living proof to the contrary, as are a number of my friends.
The presentation of ‘gay’ as the alternative to heterosexuality in public discourse about sexuality obscures differences within the gay community as much as it erases those non-heterosexuals who don’t use the gay label. Andrew Sullivan, a regular contributor to The Advocate magazine in the States, wrote in his highly influential book Virtually Normal that gay people are just that; that the only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the sex of the partners involved, and therefore that gays should be accorded the same rights as straights. Now, this call for equality is certainly admirable, but his statement glosses over the sometimes substantial differences that exist, not only between straight and gay people, but between gays.
Gay identity has been hijacked by the interests of white, middle-class men, their concerns superseding those of gay men of colour, working and lower class men, women of all varieties and those queer people who are somewhere in-between. Capitalist interests have invaded and permeated gay media, dictating tastes in everything from furniture to clothing to the physical attributes of one’s chosen partner. I guarantee you Miley and Britney aren’t throwing their weight behind gay marriage for any reason other than because they can make a fair bit of money from supporting the ‘mos.
There are decidedly fascist undertones in the gay media’s presentation of gay identity, you can argue all you want that it’s because gay men have an inherent predisposition toward ‘beauty’ but I utterly reject this – it’s ideology. Producers of luxury commodities realised a decade or so ago that gay, middle-class white men constituted a largely untapped market with proportionately greater disposable income to devote to luxuries, and they have targeted this group aggressively ever since, transforming ‘gay’ from a sexual identity into a niche consumer lifestyle. Also, the suggestion that gays have an inclination toward beauty (besides being demonstrably false – there are some pretty tasteless gay guys out there) essentially implies that what is presented in gay media is more beautiful than any alternative. And what images dominate gay media? Able-bodied, middle-class white men. An attractive man, as mandated by the gay press, looks a lot like the Aryan man idealised by the Nazis.
Politically, the gay rights movement is predicated on the assumption of a genetic basis for exclusive homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge the socially constructed aspects of sexual identity. It’s founded on the feeble apology “I was born this way, I can’t help it.” There’s SO much to take issue with here. For a start, this supplicant stance belittles the very sexuality it represents. You’re not going to get anyone to treat you as an equal if by your argument and tone you’re telling them that you’re not. Furthermore, if gay identity as we know it in the western world is encoded in genes, what are we to make of pan- and bisexuals? Are their gay genes somehow faulty? Or are there bi genes too? How about S&M genes? (See where this is going?). Gay ideologues refuse to acknowledge that it is in fact possible to be ‘post’ or ‘ex’ gay, ironic really, they get pretty angry when other people are telling them what their own sexuality is, yet they cast blanket aspersions about the sexualities of others. Consider also that the studies that ‘confirm’ a genetic basis for homosexuality completely ignore lesbianism, and what you have is not scientific study but the furthering of a political agenda.
To secure for themselves the privileges accorded to heterosexuals gay advocates have ignored the evidence of alternative trans- and homosexualities of other cultures, and rewritten the same-gender relationships of history in support of their claims. Close, platonic male-male friendships such as that of the Bible’s David and Jonathan and that of Achilles and Patroclus from classical Greek literature are ret-conned as gay relationships, and this aggressive piracy of heterosexual male role-models discourages these kind of ennobling friendships between straight men, arguably causing much of the dysfunction in many contemporary male-male and male-female relationships**.
The part that really fucks me off is that the public endorsement of the binary sexual model secures rights and recognition for the most politically and economically powerful group in the queer community, who then abandon all those that mainstream society deems less acceptable, most notably the transgendered and intersexed, and to a lesser extent the bisexual and asexual. The gay rights movement and media give lip-service to diversity while it is politically expedient for them to do so until it is not, and then they simply erase us from the debate. Gay rights activists tend to forget that recognition of their rights was first won at Stonewall, not by themselves, but by the transgender community.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying I don’t like gay people, and I’m not saying that identifying as gay is inherently bad. By all means, use the word if you feel it best represents your sexuality, but be aware that it is loaded with ideology and its use has very real implications for those queer people who don’t so easily fit into the binary model of sexuality. If you’re going to be gay, be a good gay, own it, be proud of it, and don’t be manipulated by the-powers-that-be. Make it yours. Most importantly, don’t forget to look out for your queer brothers and sisters, ‘cos you sure as hell didn’t win your rights by yourself.
DannyR
Where to start??
I just hate the binary model of sexuality that ‘gay’ identity reinforces. We see it everywhere, in the papers, on TV, in films and books and public debates: you’re either straight or you’re gay. And it’s not just that the mainstream isn’t aware of the alternatives, the gay media itself promotes this simplistic and offensive view. I mean, my god, Ari Benderski of Gay.com even went so far recently as to state that male bisexuality cannot exist! I’m living proof to the contrary, as are a number of my friends.
The presentation of ‘gay’ as the alternative to heterosexuality in public discourse about sexuality obscures differences within the gay community as much as it erases those non-heterosexuals who don’t use the gay label. Andrew Sullivan, a regular contributor to The Advocate magazine in the States, wrote in his highly influential book Virtually Normal that gay people are just that; that the only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the sex of the partners involved, and therefore that gays should be accorded the same rights as straights. Now, this call for equality is certainly admirable, but his statement glosses over the sometimes substantial differences that exist, not only between straight and gay people, but between gays.
Gay identity has been hijacked by the interests of white, middle-class men, their concerns superseding those of gay men of colour, working and lower class men, women of all varieties and those queer people who are somewhere in-between. Capitalist interests have invaded and permeated gay media, dictating tastes in everything from furniture to clothing to the physical attributes of one’s chosen partner. I guarantee you Miley and Britney aren’t throwing their weight behind gay marriage for any reason other than because they can make a fair bit of money from supporting the ‘mos.
There are decidedly fascist undertones in the gay media’s presentation of gay identity, you can argue all you want that it’s because gay men have an inherent predisposition toward ‘beauty’ but I utterly reject this – it’s ideology. Producers of luxury commodities realised a decade or so ago that gay, middle-class white men constituted a largely untapped market with proportionately greater disposable income to devote to luxuries, and they have targeted this group aggressively ever since, transforming ‘gay’ from a sexual identity into a niche consumer lifestyle. Also, the suggestion that gays have an inclination toward beauty (besides being demonstrably false – there are some pretty tasteless gay guys out there) essentially implies that what is presented in gay media is more beautiful than any alternative. And what images dominate gay media? Able-bodied, middle-class white men. An attractive man, as mandated by the gay press, looks a lot like the Aryan man idealised by the Nazis.
Politically, the gay rights movement is predicated on the assumption of a genetic basis for exclusive homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge the socially constructed aspects of sexual identity. It’s founded on the feeble apology “I was born this way, I can’t help it.” There’s SO much to take issue with here. For a start, this supplicant stance belittles the very sexuality it represents. You’re not going to get anyone to treat you as an equal if by your argument and tone you’re telling them that you’re not. Furthermore, if gay identity as we know it in the western world is encoded in genes, what are we to make of pan- and bisexuals? Are their gay genes somehow faulty? Or are there bi genes too? How about S&M genes? (See where this is going?). Gay ideologues refuse to acknowledge that it is in fact possible to be ‘post’ or ‘ex’ gay, ironic really, they get pretty angry when other people are telling them what their own sexuality is, yet they cast blanket aspersions about the sexualities of others. Consider also that the studies that ‘confirm’ a genetic basis for homosexuality completely ignore lesbianism, and what you have is not scientific study but the furthering of a political agenda.
To secure for themselves the privileges accorded to heterosexuals gay advocates have ignored the evidence of alternative trans- and homosexualities of other cultures, and rewritten the same-gender relationships of history in support of their claims. Close, platonic male-male friendships such as that of the Bible’s David and Jonathan and that of Achilles and Patroclus from classical Greek literature are ret-conned as gay relationships, and this aggressive piracy of heterosexual male role-models discourages these kind of ennobling friendships between straight men, arguably causing much of the dysfunction in many contemporary male-male and male-female relationships**.
The part that really fucks me off is that the public endorsement of the binary sexual model secures rights and recognition for the most politically and economically powerful group in the queer community, who then abandon all those that mainstream society deems less acceptable, most notably the transgendered and intersexed, and to a lesser extent the bisexual and asexual. The gay rights movement and media give lip-service to diversity while it is politically expedient for them to do so until it is not, and then they simply erase us from the debate. Gay rights activists tend to forget that recognition of their rights was first won at Stonewall, not by themselves, but by the transgender community.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying I don’t like gay people, and I’m not saying that identifying as gay is inherently bad. By all means, use the word if you feel it best represents your sexuality, but be aware that it is loaded with ideology and its use has very real implications for those queer people who don’t so easily fit into the binary model of sexuality. If you’re going to be gay, be a good gay, own it, be proud of it, and don’t be manipulated by the-powers-that-be. Make it yours. Most importantly, don’t forget to look out for your queer brothers and sisters, ‘cos you sure as hell didn’t win your rights by yourself.
DannyR
Star Trek: Boldly Going... Somewhere Else?
Directed by J.J. Abrams, Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin & John Cho
Grade C.
SPOILERS BELOW!!
Bright, shiny, fast, loud and contrived: this is Star Trek for people who’ve never watched Star Trek. It’s the kind of bland Hollywood summer blockbuster that we’re seeing so much of these days, and you just know it’s gonna be popular.
If you’re a long-term fan, your reaction to this movie will fall somewhere between disappointment and outrage. I’m not going to get into how the plot casually erases the entire history of the galaxy as established by 40 years of previous Trek films and TV series, and I’m not going to whinge about the often staggering coincidences and plot holes that abound throughout. I want to talk about characterisation, atmosphere, ambiance. Now sure, I’m biased, but I’d like to point out that I went with a friend who’s never been interested in Star Trek, and he said the movie just failed to make him care about any of the characters or the story. So I’m not alone here.
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk was perhaps the biggest disappointment. He was a poor choice for the role, his face is babyish rather than classically handsome and he lacks the arrogant, brooding presence that William Shatner brought to the character. What the film-makers really failed to grasp is that the original Star Trek was about a swaggering, macho ladies’ man and his sweet ride, a guy who cruises into town, starts a brawl, saves the day and rides of into the sunset, leaving a trail of broken hearts behind him. Compared to Shatner’s Kirk, Pine’s character is something of a joke.
And what of said sweet ride? The Enterprise was attractive, despite my initial misgivings about the changes to its iconic design, but it certainly didn’t inspire the sense of awe that previous incarnations have. We’re supposed to be blown away by this ship, it’s supposed to be the most advanced and powerful vessel in the galaxy, but it’s onscreen for perhaps two minutes in total in the entire film. Maybe the film-makers cut its scenes, given the violent fan reactions to leaked pictures of the design over the past year. They certainly didn’t give the new ship the loving, slow reveal that past films have lavished on it. In fact in terms of action and on-screen presence, it was completely displaced by another little craft.
Another essential ingredient of Trek has always been the relationship between Kirk and first officer Spock. The film-makers did make a decent attempt to capture this dynamic, but just didn’t quite get it right. It feels forced, like they’re trying to recreate the chemistry of the original characters without going through any sort of process to make it happen. One minute Kirk and Spock hate each other, the next they’re best friends. Zachary Quinto certainly looked the part as Spock, but had none of the dignity and solemnity of Leonard Nimoy’s portrayal of the character. This is especially obvious as Nimoy is actually in the movie as well, playing an older Spock.
Eric Bana as vengeful Romulan Nero was intimidating to look at, but oddly soft-spoken, and I have to say he has possibly the most ridiculous motivation for causing mayhem I've ever come across in Star Trek. His home planet Romulus and everyone on it is about to be wiped out by a supernova, distant cousins the Vulcans try to help save the planet by creating a black hole to divert the solar flare and in the process destroy the very planet they're trying to save, and accidentally send Nero and his cronies two hundred years back in time. Nero arrives in the earlier era, and rather than go and see the planet he thought he'd lost forever, and perhaps become the hero of his people, he goes on a vendetta against the Federation (who, as enemies of the Romulan Empire, were under no obligation to save Romulus but tried anyway), planning to blow up the Feds one planet at a time, beginning with Vulcan and then moving on to Earth, naturally. The whole thing is just a convoluted way for writers and producers to press the 'reset' button and start fresh with only the bits of Trek they want to retain, consigning the rest to the interstellar dustbin.
What of the supporting cast? I can't deny Simon Pegg as Scotty was great fun but he was largely absent from the film (arriving fully halfway through in another ludicrous coincidence) and didn’t do anything much to save the day, as he used to in the original TV series and the movies based on it. He was basically reduced to comic relief status, though perhaps that’s to be expected, given Pegg’s previous films. John Cho as Hikaru Sulu was pretty kick-ass, and did seem to have some of the fire that the original actor brought to the role, but I couldn't quite accept him in the part, he just looks so different. Still, I expect he will continue to be sheer awesome in future films, cos I can guarantee there's at least two in the works even now.
Anton Yelchin playing young math-genius Chekov was funny, but I rather take issue with how the film-makers took what is essentially a supporting role and greatly expanded it, arguably at the expense of Uhura’s place in the ensemble, leaving her with nothing to do but look pretty and kiss Spock a couple of times (no real change there then). This was particularly disappointing, as a great deal was made of her talents and achievements in the early part of the film, and then the film utterly fails to build on these. NZ's own Karl Urban as Dr ‘Bones’ McCoy was the standout performer, he alone seemed to have really captured the essence of the original character.
Stylistically, this take on one of SciFi’s oldest and most loved franchises owes a lot to the resurrected Battlestar Galactica TV series, there’s a lot of shaky hand-held camera work and a real military feel to the character interactions interspersed with short, silent space shots. Maybe this has something to do with my feeling as I sat there that this isn’t Star Trek – past Trek films have revelled in elaborate space battles replete with the clamouring of titanic explosions and pounding drums. The film-makers have incorporated a lot of those recognisable little details from the original series – gun and uniform designs and colours, tinny sound effects – which bring on nerdgasms among the faithful, and there are plenty of little in-jokes, but the total effect is of pastiche or parody rather than a genuine continuation of the franchise. I think it’s telling that Galaxy Quest, an actual parody, feels more like Star Trek than this new film does.
This movie will undoubtedly draw a new generation of fans to the Star Trek universe, and perhaps rekindle enthusiasm for past incarnations of the show, but I can’t help feeling that the future of the franchise will be a lot less rich, a lot more formulaic and more reliant on cheap thrills and jokes than on decent storytelling and characterisation.
DannyR
This movie will undoubtedly draw a new generation of fans to the Star Trek universe, and perhaps rekindle enthusiasm for past incarnations of the show, but I can’t help feeling that the future of the franchise will be a lot less rich, a lot more formulaic and more reliant on cheap thrills and jokes than on decent storytelling and characterisation.
DannyR
Friday, May 8, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
My Momma Said...
An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.
One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.
But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.
'I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house.'
The old woman smiled, 'Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side?'
'That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.'
'For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.'
Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding.
You've just got to take each person for what they are and look for the good in them.
SO, to all of my crackpot friends, have a great day and remember to smell the flowers on your side of the path!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Snorey Danny...
Stuck at Massey trying to get this blasted essay done on intragroup conflict and minority/majority influence in small groups. Grrr!!!
V tired today, feeling a bit headachey and stiff cos I was up so late last night. Hopefully I can get this all finished and submitted by tomorrow morning so I'll have the rest of the weekend to complete the other one!!
I wanna go home and snooze!!
V tired today, feeling a bit headachey and stiff cos I was up so late last night. Hopefully I can get this all finished and submitted by tomorrow morning so I'll have the rest of the weekend to complete the other one!!
I wanna go home and snooze!!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
OliVaylle Fires Actor Because Of Previous Role
I'm irritated and annoyed. Below I have copied and pasted an blog post I read at http://practicalpolyamory.blogspot.com/2009/02/poly-family-web-series-actor-fired.html
Here 'tis:
This news just in. Terisa Greenan is the Seattle-based creator of the polyamory-themed hit comic web series "Family" that has gotten a lot of attention around the poly community in recent months. Terisa has just posted a disappointing piece of news to her Facebook Notes. Terisa writes:
This is a disheartening story that I feel the need to share for many reasons. Ernie Joseph, who plays Ben on our Web series “Family,” recently shot a commercial for the Australian olive oil company OliVaylle. The commercial was created by Mulberry Street advertising firm and produced by Black Squirrel Productions in Seattle. Ernie was excited about this new opportunity because he was told by the producers that he was likely going to be the new face of the brand, and that there could be a series of commercials featuring him to be produced in the future. Then, suddenly, the plug was pulled on his new advertising gig and the commercial Ernie shot was actually re-shot with a different actor. Producers told Ernie that the owners of OliVaylle had received links to “Family” and because of the nature of the show, no longer wanted Ernie to represent them.
In my opinion this is a terribly bigoted move by this Australian company. I know that there is a large polyamory community in Australia and that many of them are fans of our web series, “Family.” I wonder how they will feel about this. If I could wave a magic wand and make everyone aware of this injustice and the company behind it, I would. Thank you all for your support of the web series, and thanks especially to those of you who aren’t poly yourselves, but are tolerant and open-minded enough not to discriminate against those of us who are, or those of us who are involved in this apparently controversial web series. Terisa GreenanProducer, 3 Dog Pictures
LLCI recommended that Terisa refer Ernie to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, which routinely offers advice and assistance to polyamorous people who are subjected to job discrimination. The most outrageous part of all this is that Ernie was dismissed for playing a polyamorous character, not for actually BEING polyamorous*. Apparently OliVaylle believes Ernie portraying such a "character" while simultaneously being the face of their product would be harmful to their sales. Sheesh. If you've never see "Family", take a look. Here's the first episode.
One of the comments on the post was:
PolyOz said...
If you really want to make an impact, use this link everywhere you can:OliVaylle fires actor because of previous role This link makes the company name the "anchor text" pointing at this blog post. If it appears enough times, then Google will notice. After that, people who Google for the company will see this blog post on the first page of the search results, right next to the company website.If you are making links to this blog post in an editor which has a chain icon and opens a separate window, just make sure the text you have highlighted includes the company name (spelled correctly).
*He's not.
Here 'tis:
This news just in. Terisa Greenan is the Seattle-based creator of the polyamory-themed hit comic web series "Family" that has gotten a lot of attention around the poly community in recent months. Terisa has just posted a disappointing piece of news to her Facebook Notes. Terisa writes:
This is a disheartening story that I feel the need to share for many reasons. Ernie Joseph, who plays Ben on our Web series “Family,” recently shot a commercial for the Australian olive oil company OliVaylle. The commercial was created by Mulberry Street advertising firm and produced by Black Squirrel Productions in Seattle. Ernie was excited about this new opportunity because he was told by the producers that he was likely going to be the new face of the brand, and that there could be a series of commercials featuring him to be produced in the future. Then, suddenly, the plug was pulled on his new advertising gig and the commercial Ernie shot was actually re-shot with a different actor. Producers told Ernie that the owners of OliVaylle had received links to “Family” and because of the nature of the show, no longer wanted Ernie to represent them.
In my opinion this is a terribly bigoted move by this Australian company. I know that there is a large polyamory community in Australia and that many of them are fans of our web series, “Family.” I wonder how they will feel about this. If I could wave a magic wand and make everyone aware of this injustice and the company behind it, I would. Thank you all for your support of the web series, and thanks especially to those of you who aren’t poly yourselves, but are tolerant and open-minded enough not to discriminate against those of us who are, or those of us who are involved in this apparently controversial web series. Terisa GreenanProducer, 3 Dog Pictures
LLCI recommended that Terisa refer Ernie to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, which routinely offers advice and assistance to polyamorous people who are subjected to job discrimination. The most outrageous part of all this is that Ernie was dismissed for playing a polyamorous character, not for actually BEING polyamorous*. Apparently OliVaylle believes Ernie portraying such a "character" while simultaneously being the face of their product would be harmful to their sales. Sheesh. If you've never see "Family", take a look. Here's the first episode.
One of the comments on the post was:
PolyOz said...
If you really want to make an impact, use this link everywhere you can:OliVaylle fires actor because of previous role This link makes the company name the "anchor text" pointing at this blog post. If it appears enough times, then Google will notice. After that, people who Google for the company will see this blog post on the first page of the search results, right next to the company website.If you are making links to this blog post in an editor which has a chain icon and opens a separate window, just make sure the text you have highlighted includes the company name (spelled correctly).
*He's not.
Cracking Up...
Ok so I found this picture on a blog and just went into fits of laughter for nearly five minutes... dunno why but it's the funniest thing I've seen in months...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Bisexuality and homosexuality in Japan
Here's a great article on a blog I've been following lately detailing the prevalence of bisexuality in Japanese culture, which makes note of the public perception of male homosexuals as effeminate "women-haters."
This of course has its parallel in Western society, somewhat less so now than in past decades, yet I'm inclined to think that while the stereotype has declined somewhat, the idea persists that at least one of the men in any homosexual coupling will essentially be a girl-in-a-male-body, and that such a feminine man will inevitably partner with a more rugged, 'manly' man, thus imitating and affirming the heterosexual norm*.
Now, this stereotype seems to be promulgated by television, I'm thinking of shows like Desperate Housewives in particular, and I guess by presenting homosexual couples as emulating the heterosexual model, tv writers and executives have done some good in increasing public acceptance of homosexual relationships. And it has certainly weakened the deeply entrenched belief that all gay men are weak and gender confused. But unless the Queer community continues to push for diverse representation, I'm afraid that is where it will stop, and we will have failed to really make significant change.
It's a foot in the door, but we cannot be happy with simply supporting status quo. Too often, gay men make some headway in advancing their personal liberties only to abandon those in the queer community less numerous and powerful than themselves.
Let's not be complacent, then, let's continue to make a noise for the sake of those who are seldom heard.
* Lesbian couples don't seem to be tarred with this same brush - tv land is quite happy to depict both women in a same-sex relationship as feminine because it titillates and panders to male fancy. In fact, it would seem that lesbians have the opposite problem - Dykes and butches are virtually non-existant on tv, the implication being that they're not real women.
This of course has its parallel in Western society, somewhat less so now than in past decades, yet I'm inclined to think that while the stereotype has declined somewhat, the idea persists that at least one of the men in any homosexual coupling will essentially be a girl-in-a-male-body, and that such a feminine man will inevitably partner with a more rugged, 'manly' man, thus imitating and affirming the heterosexual norm*.
Now, this stereotype seems to be promulgated by television, I'm thinking of shows like Desperate Housewives in particular, and I guess by presenting homosexual couples as emulating the heterosexual model, tv writers and executives have done some good in increasing public acceptance of homosexual relationships. And it has certainly weakened the deeply entrenched belief that all gay men are weak and gender confused. But unless the Queer community continues to push for diverse representation, I'm afraid that is where it will stop, and we will have failed to really make significant change.
It's a foot in the door, but we cannot be happy with simply supporting status quo. Too often, gay men make some headway in advancing their personal liberties only to abandon those in the queer community less numerous and powerful than themselves.
Let's not be complacent, then, let's continue to make a noise for the sake of those who are seldom heard.
* Lesbian couples don't seem to be tarred with this same brush - tv land is quite happy to depict both women in a same-sex relationship as feminine because it titillates and panders to male fancy. In fact, it would seem that lesbians have the opposite problem - Dykes and butches are virtually non-existant on tv, the implication being that they're not real women.
Alive
It wasn’t that I wanted
To forget where I’d come from,
But momentum won’t be argued with -
I was just swept along.
Now, looking back I’ve realised
I don’t know how I began,
I’ve forgotten all my lessons
And let slip the life I planned.
I find myself as washed ashore,
My stricken ship abandoned,
The wreckage strewn along the beach,
Seemingly at random.
And gazing back from whence I came
It feels as but a dream –
Some other life, a different world
Out there, beyond the sea.
Yet here am I, despite the storm
It seems that I survived,
The only thing that matters now
Is that I am Alive.
- Danny Rudd 13/04/08
To forget where I’d come from,
But momentum won’t be argued with -
I was just swept along.
Now, looking back I’ve realised
I don’t know how I began,
I’ve forgotten all my lessons
And let slip the life I planned.
I find myself as washed ashore,
My stricken ship abandoned,
The wreckage strewn along the beach,
Seemingly at random.
And gazing back from whence I came
It feels as but a dream –
Some other life, a different world
Out there, beyond the sea.
Yet here am I, despite the storm
It seems that I survived,
The only thing that matters now
Is that I am Alive.
- Danny Rudd 13/04/08
Trans 101
Today was the first day of the transgender seminar here in Palmy, held at Te Manawa and hosted by the Human Rights Commission.
There were two sessions today, a morning session which featured a panel of trans folk from around the region, some from as far away as Hamilton and Rotorua (and one was a teacher at my old high school - Western Heights!!), and an afternoon session focusing on working with trans youth, creating safe spaces and accommodating their needs in existing organisations.
As I noted in my other post about the seminars here(http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/03/assume-nothing-devinat-5-chaff-2009.html), I've actually been to the same workshops before, when they were held at The New Dowse in Upper Hutt last year. I came away from that experience with a huge respect for, and appreciation of, the trans folks who have been brave enough to front up publicly demanding fair treatment and equal rights. Some of those same people were at today's sessions, but there were a lot of new faces and again I was deeply moved by the sharing of personal histories and the positive, encouraging atmosphere of the occasion.
I met our local representatives for AGENDA and GenderBridge, which was great because they haven't had much involvement with MaLGRA and certainly not with UniQ, so we're going to get together to nut out some strategies for the university and the local queer community. I was also really pleased to see representatives of MaLGRA and YOSS, and even some lecturers from Massey attending. But I was perhaps most impressed to see some of my UniQ kids show up for the later session, I feel like I've been banging on about this for months and was disappointed when none of them showed up to the morning session. I know, I know.... students ;)
Tomorrow there is a session focusing on the Assume Nothing exhibition, also held at Te Manawa, which will feature talks from people actually in the artworks, followed by some performance art from local trans folk. I'll definitely be attending that, and my friend Amelia, she of the incredible talent for sculpture, will be joining me.
For now though, I'll have a nap and then try to make myself pretty(ish) to head out on the town, as my mate Melle is up from Wellington and staying with us for the weekend. I'll post more about tomorrow's shenanigans when once they're past.
There were two sessions today, a morning session which featured a panel of trans folk from around the region, some from as far away as Hamilton and Rotorua (and one was a teacher at my old high school - Western Heights!!), and an afternoon session focusing on working with trans youth, creating safe spaces and accommodating their needs in existing organisations.
As I noted in my other post about the seminars here(http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/03/assume-nothing-devinat-5-chaff-2009.html), I've actually been to the same workshops before, when they were held at The New Dowse in Upper Hutt last year. I came away from that experience with a huge respect for, and appreciation of, the trans folks who have been brave enough to front up publicly demanding fair treatment and equal rights. Some of those same people were at today's sessions, but there were a lot of new faces and again I was deeply moved by the sharing of personal histories and the positive, encouraging atmosphere of the occasion.
I met our local representatives for AGENDA and GenderBridge, which was great because they haven't had much involvement with MaLGRA and certainly not with UniQ, so we're going to get together to nut out some strategies for the university and the local queer community. I was also really pleased to see representatives of MaLGRA and YOSS, and even some lecturers from Massey attending. But I was perhaps most impressed to see some of my UniQ kids show up for the later session, I feel like I've been banging on about this for months and was disappointed when none of them showed up to the morning session. I know, I know.... students ;)
Tomorrow there is a session focusing on the Assume Nothing exhibition, also held at Te Manawa, which will feature talks from people actually in the artworks, followed by some performance art from local trans folk. I'll definitely be attending that, and my friend Amelia, she of the incredible talent for sculpture, will be joining me.
For now though, I'll have a nap and then try to make myself pretty(ish) to head out on the town, as my mate Melle is up from Wellington and staying with us for the weekend. I'll post more about tomorrow's shenanigans when once they're past.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Susan Boyle. O. M. G.
Check this out, it's a great clip of a very unusual lady, from Britain's Got Talent.
What is going ON??!!??
Sometimes I wake up and I panic, because something feels deeply, deeply wrong.
I lie there and think about it, trying to pinpoint what exactly it is that's out of place, sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. It's usually pretty subtle, sometimes it's that something I've seen on TV has been mixed into my dreams, changing the way the world is, and I wake knowing that it's wrong.
Other times I wake up knowing - just knowing - that the world is not as it appears to be, that there are things going on beneath that surface that I do not understand and am not privy to. It's a kind of paranoia I guess.
This morning was one of those mornings, I woke up an hour or so ago and sat down to get on with my work and I still don't know what exactly it is that feels so out of place.
It's probably nothing...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Truth In Fiction
I meant no harm, I most truly did not.
But I had to grow bigger, so bigger I got.
I biggered my factory. I biggered my roads.
I biggered my wagons. I biggered the loads.
Of the Thneeds I shipped out. I was shipping them forth
To the South! To the East! To the West! To the North!
I went right on biggering... selling more Thneeds.
And I biggered my money, which everyone needs.
THE ONCE-LER, from Dr Seuss' The Lorax
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sir Rupert... the sweetest video ever :)
Ch-ch-check it out!!
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/sir-rupert-the-gay-knight/12680889
I love this video SOOOO much.
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/sir-rupert-the-gay-knight/12680889
I love this video SOOOO much.
Pork Is The Meat Of Kings!!
Ohmigod this is disturbing. And yet, strangely enticing...
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Pork/
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Pork/
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Ecco Music - Split the Stream of Time, by Viper.Fox
Very Awesome!!
Viper.Fox has recorded the soundtracks for Ecco I & II and made them available for download... to listen, go to Dark Sea, our favourite Ecco site, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Science vs Religion
Heart
I guess I just care too much...