I'm working on a master's thesis right now that involves a lot of thought on human bodies, particularly the bodies of women, in relation to society and to God. In particular, I'm trying to address the two disparate thoughts that (a) all human beings are created, body+soul, in the image of God, and (b) the majority of women in Western Society have very challenging and unfriendly relationships with their bodies, because capitalistic/patriarchal culture is constantly providing "normative" "good" bodies with which to compare, none of which are actually normal or good. The young/slim/sexy body that is portrayed in the media is unattainable, especially since most bodies that we see in magazines, on TV, in movies, or on the 'net are touched up by computers.
As a part of my research, I was just reading a round-table discussion on the contribution that differently-abled women could add to feminist/womanist theology. I'm glad that I read it, even though I might not characterize myself as a feminist theologian (although I might characterize myself as a theologian and a feminist). Because the discussion involved much talk about the body and the Body, particularly putting forth the possibility of thinking of the Body as a "disabled body," I was very interested in the thoughts these women could share.
But on a note totally unrelated to my thesis, it occurred to me that virtual worlds really exclude the disabled body (or the non-normative body, for that matter, including the fat body). I play MMORPGs, games that provide the player with the opportunity to create an avatar which then goes on adventures and otherwise interacts with the persistent world of the game. Now, MMOs tend to be "adventure" based, so in some ways it is understandable that one cannot create an avatar that, for example, has one leg or no arms or is deaf. Blindness, due to the fact that computer games are visual media, is very much out of the question.
But then I thought about it further. I tried out the "game" Second Life after seeing it on CSI:NY. I was generally unimpressed since I see no need to have a "second life" (my first life is work enough as it is). But what is interested is that there still was no way to create an avatar that is differently abled (or fat/obese). Now, I know that most people want to create ideal versions of themselves, or something completely different (though still usually ideal in some way) when they re-image themselves on the Internet. But it seems to me that if a differently abled person wanted to enter into the Second Life world mirroring their first life, then they would be without opportunity to do so. I saw no option to have my avatar negotiate the world in a wheelchair or to need a cane, or any other physical form than having two legs, two arms, etc. Age and fat were also limited in the avatar creation.
I haven't done a lot of thinking about this yet; sometimes I blog more to get random ideas out of my head than to communicate well developed thoughts! I think the conclusion I've come to is simply that the iBody is probably as limited if not more limited by a normatizing force of culture than the fleshly human bodies we actually are. Sometimes this is simply a lack of imagination (i.e. World of Warcraft features a race called the Tauren which appear to be humanoid cattle; the females have human breasts. Why don't they have udders?), but often it is a detrimental and insidious normatizing of a particular image of human embodiment. "Good" or "desirable" human bodies are young and thin/fit/strong (depending on gender), sexually desirable (for men, this means being big and muscular, for women, small waisted and big breasted), and "whole." Scars (in MMOs) are seen as evidence of battle prowess and are not "disfiguring" in the truest sense of the word.
I'm probably reading more into this than I should, but as a woman and a theologian (in training) concerned with the human body, and as a "gamer" (casual, not hardcore), I found the thoughts percolating.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Feminists and Christians: Not Always as Far Apart as People Think
Naomi Wolf on Why Porn Turns Men Off the Real Thing -- New York Magazine
I'm reading The Beauty Myth for the first time right now. For those who haven't heard of it, it is Naomi Wolf's first book, credited with kicking off the third wave of feminism by opening the eyes of women to the fact that we are under constant manipulation by a market-driven, politicized beauty culture. I have to admit that 17 years after the book was written, things seem to have gotten worse rather than better, but that's a post for another day.
I googled Wolf's name to get a sense of what she is up to now, and came across the above article on pornography. Porn is a hot topic (pardon the pun) in today's world, both in the secular realm and in the Christian subculture. More and more pastors are discussing porn addictions and more and more magazines, news programs, and academic settings are starting to engage the topic of pornography and its identity as art, sex slavery, or harmless fun.
Naomi Wolf says some things in this article that would shock a few Christians, mostly because they are coming from the woman who launched third wave feminism. Frankly, I think that if her name or identity was hidden from readers, this article might pass (with a very few alterations) for an article in Christianity Today.
Reading the following article, I was particularly struck by the resemblance of the following to a passage from one of the twentieth century's most celebrated apologists:
But does all this sexual imagery in the air mean that sex has been liberated—or is it the case that the relationship between the multi-billion-dollar porn industry, compulsiveness, and sexual appetite has become like the relationship between agribusiness, processed foods, supersize portions, and obesity? If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so.
- Naomi Wolf, "The Porn Myth" (click through to the second page)
Compare:
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act -- that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer [sic] about the state of the sex instinct among us?
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 96. Originally published in 1952.
Although I shudder a little at the comparison of a young woman and a bit of bacon, I also think there is an eerie prophetic resonance between the words of Lewis written 56 years ago and the words of Wolf, writing in the 21st Century cyber-world. Our appetite for food has been debased -- we are the strange country that Lewis proposed -- and our appetite for sex is also being, or I should say, has already been, debased. The words of the young man that Wolf leaves us with at the end of the article are haunting:
“Mystery?” He looked at me blankly. And then, without hesitating, he replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sex has no mystery.”
He was being asked to justify his claim that newly dating couples should have sex right away in order to get the "tension" and "awkwardness" out of the way.
Wolf gives very surprising deference to the religious folks that have already understood that the preservation of the mystery of the sexual union is valuable. A lot of my evangelical Christian sisters and brothers would be shocked beyond belief to hear such a suggestion from a feminist, whom they believe of course to be responsible for most if not all of the postmodern amorality surrounding sex.
But when it comes to porn, the similarities between feminists and Christians become striking. We both shake angry fists at the industry that enslaves, directly or indirectly, millions of women, children, and men every year. The industry that makes violence sexy, and that iconizes the casual sexual union is a common enemy for both Christians and feminists. And as someone who rather insanely likes to self-identify both as an Evangelical Christian and as a feminist, this issue has the capacity to make both parts of my mind equally livid.
I guess my point (aside from getting people to read and think about Wolf's article) is that evangelicals and feminists need to step away from some of the more popular issues that divide us (we all know what those are) and try to unite on this one issue. Aside from being rather earth-shatteringly exciting, such a union could have the power to make something happen. The reality that both groups need to address is that porn is exponentially more popular every year, and that it is becoming very acceptable to the mainstream. It is no longer considered wrong, deviant, or shameful to consume pornography. I have even heard whispers among Christians that, as long as it is viewed only by married people, together, porn is an acceptable way to stimulate sexual passion.
No. And again, NO. For all the reasons that Wolf lists and the many ethical and moral reasons that Christ would list, pornography is never good, never normal, and never acceptable to anyone, especially Christians. It is abusive (save me the "porn stars choose their lot" arguments -- I'd bet that for every woman/child/man who chooses to be in the porn industry, five more are forced to be there; and let's not even get into the relationship between porn and the sex trade), it is unbelievably degrading to the human body and soul, and it promotes deviant sexual relations. (Watch it now -- here comes the crazy evangelical part of me:) Porn is, quite simply, a work of Satan. There: I said it. Satan! It makes a cruel mockery and perversion of what God created to be a good and holy gift: the sensuality expressed in Adam's cry, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23), the union of woman and man in marriage. That's a pretty strong position, I know, and it's not original either. You can visit any Christian anti-pornography site and get the same message, with even more crazy fonts and bright colours.
The issue just tends to get me riled up because I am deeply concerned about the growing apathy and even acceptance of pornography in the mainstream. As a Christian, my concerns are ranted above, and as a feminist, I bewail the degradation particularly of women, who have come so far in the twentieth century only to continue to be held back by issues such as this. It concerns me both as a Christian and as a feminist that such little value is placed on the human lives involved and on the interference that porn is having on healthy human relationships. We need to be discussing the why we shouldn't's of porn in order to out-shout the why we want to's of the porn consumer. And I think that this discussion would get deafening if it was heard to be taking place, civilly and with solidarity, between Christians and feminists.
I'm reading The Beauty Myth for the first time right now. For those who haven't heard of it, it is Naomi Wolf's first book, credited with kicking off the third wave of feminism by opening the eyes of women to the fact that we are under constant manipulation by a market-driven, politicized beauty culture. I have to admit that 17 years after the book was written, things seem to have gotten worse rather than better, but that's a post for another day.
I googled Wolf's name to get a sense of what she is up to now, and came across the above article on pornography. Porn is a hot topic (pardon the pun) in today's world, both in the secular realm and in the Christian subculture. More and more pastors are discussing porn addictions and more and more magazines, news programs, and academic settings are starting to engage the topic of pornography and its identity as art, sex slavery, or harmless fun.
Naomi Wolf says some things in this article that would shock a few Christians, mostly because they are coming from the woman who launched third wave feminism. Frankly, I think that if her name or identity was hidden from readers, this article might pass (with a very few alterations) for an article in Christianity Today.
Reading the following article, I was particularly struck by the resemblance of the following to a passage from one of the twentieth century's most celebrated apologists:
But does all this sexual imagery in the air mean that sex has been liberated—or is it the case that the relationship between the multi-billion-dollar porn industry, compulsiveness, and sexual appetite has become like the relationship between agribusiness, processed foods, supersize portions, and obesity? If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so.
- Naomi Wolf, "The Porn Myth" (click through to the second page)
Compare:
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act -- that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer [sic] about the state of the sex instinct among us?
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 96. Originally published in 1952.
Although I shudder a little at the comparison of a young woman and a bit of bacon, I also think there is an eerie prophetic resonance between the words of Lewis written 56 years ago and the words of Wolf, writing in the 21st Century cyber-world. Our appetite for food has been debased -- we are the strange country that Lewis proposed -- and our appetite for sex is also being, or I should say, has already been, debased. The words of the young man that Wolf leaves us with at the end of the article are haunting:
“Mystery?” He looked at me blankly. And then, without hesitating, he replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sex has no mystery.”
He was being asked to justify his claim that newly dating couples should have sex right away in order to get the "tension" and "awkwardness" out of the way.
Wolf gives very surprising deference to the religious folks that have already understood that the preservation of the mystery of the sexual union is valuable. A lot of my evangelical Christian sisters and brothers would be shocked beyond belief to hear such a suggestion from a feminist, whom they believe of course to be responsible for most if not all of the postmodern amorality surrounding sex.
But when it comes to porn, the similarities between feminists and Christians become striking. We both shake angry fists at the industry that enslaves, directly or indirectly, millions of women, children, and men every year. The industry that makes violence sexy, and that iconizes the casual sexual union is a common enemy for both Christians and feminists. And as someone who rather insanely likes to self-identify both as an Evangelical Christian and as a feminist, this issue has the capacity to make both parts of my mind equally livid.
I guess my point (aside from getting people to read and think about Wolf's article) is that evangelicals and feminists need to step away from some of the more popular issues that divide us (we all know what those are) and try to unite on this one issue. Aside from being rather earth-shatteringly exciting, such a union could have the power to make something happen. The reality that both groups need to address is that porn is exponentially more popular every year, and that it is becoming very acceptable to the mainstream. It is no longer considered wrong, deviant, or shameful to consume pornography. I have even heard whispers among Christians that, as long as it is viewed only by married people, together, porn is an acceptable way to stimulate sexual passion.
No. And again, NO. For all the reasons that Wolf lists and the many ethical and moral reasons that Christ would list, pornography is never good, never normal, and never acceptable to anyone, especially Christians. It is abusive (save me the "porn stars choose their lot" arguments -- I'd bet that for every woman/child/man who chooses to be in the porn industry, five more are forced to be there; and let's not even get into the relationship between porn and the sex trade), it is unbelievably degrading to the human body and soul, and it promotes deviant sexual relations. (Watch it now -- here comes the crazy evangelical part of me:) Porn is, quite simply, a work of Satan. There: I said it. Satan! It makes a cruel mockery and perversion of what God created to be a good and holy gift: the sensuality expressed in Adam's cry, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23), the union of woman and man in marriage. That's a pretty strong position, I know, and it's not original either. You can visit any Christian anti-pornography site and get the same message, with even more crazy fonts and bright colours.
The issue just tends to get me riled up because I am deeply concerned about the growing apathy and even acceptance of pornography in the mainstream. As a Christian, my concerns are ranted above, and as a feminist, I bewail the degradation particularly of women, who have come so far in the twentieth century only to continue to be held back by issues such as this. It concerns me both as a Christian and as a feminist that such little value is placed on the human lives involved and on the interference that porn is having on healthy human relationships. We need to be discussing the why we shouldn't's of porn in order to out-shout the why we want to's of the porn consumer. And I think that this discussion would get deafening if it was heard to be taking place, civilly and with solidarity, between Christians and feminists.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
How Did I Miss This?
Some things I just take for granted without thinking about them. Here is a case in point:
The Winter 2008 edition of The Priscilla Papers, the academic journal published by Christians for Biblical Equality features the article, "Women Martyrs in the Early Church: Hearing Another Side to the Story" by Andrea Lorenzo Molinari, which dropped a little fact into my lap that overturned something I had always taken for granted.
Molinari pointed out two pieces of Scripture:
Mark 1:29-31
29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30 Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. 31 So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.
1 Corinthians 9:5
5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
(for those unfamiliar with the Bible, Simon and Cephas are the same guy, more commonly known as Peter)
I've emphasized the bits that were a little paradigm shattering for me. I had always taken for granted that the apostles were all single. I'm not sure where I acquired that idea, but it seems to me that I'm not alone in believing it.
Instead, we know for sure that Peter had a wife (and Molinari's article, which is not about married apostles but about women martyrs, shares her martyrdom story), but according to Paul, not only Peter but "the other apostles" had wives as well, and their wives went with them as they travelled for their ministries.
I don't know about you, but this was a pretty radical new image of the apostles for me, and one that I should have come up with on my own. With all the arguments going on to counter Dan Brown's suggestion that Jesus was married -- i.e. that it was culturally the norm in Jesus' day for Jewish men to be married and that the radicalness of Jesus was that he wasn't, blah, blah, blah -- why did it never occur to me that twelve more guys running around single with Jesus would be even weirder! It made sense for Jesus to be single (ask me why!) but it wasn't necessary for the apostles to be single as well.
Now, this does beg a question: did the apostles' wives travel with them while they were travelling with Jesus? It's another interesting tidbit to consider...
I just can't believe I've always missed this!
The Winter 2008 edition of The Priscilla Papers, the academic journal published by Christians for Biblical Equality features the article, "Women Martyrs in the Early Church: Hearing Another Side to the Story" by Andrea Lorenzo Molinari, which dropped a little fact into my lap that overturned something I had always taken for granted.
Molinari pointed out two pieces of Scripture:
Mark 1:29-31
29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30 Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. 31 So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.
1 Corinthians 9:5
5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
(for those unfamiliar with the Bible, Simon and Cephas are the same guy, more commonly known as Peter)
I've emphasized the bits that were a little paradigm shattering for me. I had always taken for granted that the apostles were all single. I'm not sure where I acquired that idea, but it seems to me that I'm not alone in believing it.
Instead, we know for sure that Peter had a wife (and Molinari's article, which is not about married apostles but about women martyrs, shares her martyrdom story), but according to Paul, not only Peter but "the other apostles" had wives as well, and their wives went with them as they travelled for their ministries.
I don't know about you, but this was a pretty radical new image of the apostles for me, and one that I should have come up with on my own. With all the arguments going on to counter Dan Brown's suggestion that Jesus was married -- i.e. that it was culturally the norm in Jesus' day for Jewish men to be married and that the radicalness of Jesus was that he wasn't, blah, blah, blah -- why did it never occur to me that twelve more guys running around single with Jesus would be even weirder! It made sense for Jesus to be single (ask me why!) but it wasn't necessary for the apostles to be single as well.
Now, this does beg a question: did the apostles' wives travel with them while they were travelling with Jesus? It's another interesting tidbit to consider...
I just can't believe I've always missed this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
