Thoughts on the extended family - Journal Entry

Original source Photo by Robert Tadlock. Used with permission.

When the deep melancholy of my soul demands my full attention. Lick this wound, it says, pick this scab. Wallow and whine. You have been hurt, it says. What hurts the most is seeming to be forgotten, not even missed. In retrospect, not forgotten, perhaps more like disregarded. For a long time I missed the family relationships I once had. I poured love into them because I liked them, loved them. I gave my hospitality and my heart. I helped them when they needed it, gave them a place to stay, showed them around tried, tried, tried like heck to build a family. Sometimes when they stepped on my toes I ignored it, because I had a hard time standing up for myself. I also feel everyone should have an occasional pass or two when they behave badly, so long as it's rare not habitual. When they kept stepping on my toes I finally had to say something. Ouch! That hurts could you please not do it again? I guess they like to step wherever they like with no regard to the toes of others, because when I mentioned it, they shut me out shut me down. And no matter what efforts I made to smooth things over and rebuild a relationship, to this day we remain estranged. And even from afar, when I have established a safe distance, they seem to continue to find ways to step on toes. I must conclude that they like stepping on people's toes. Why?
from 7/29/2011

Boyhood Movie - Is Race an Issue In One Scene?

I’m linking an article about a so-called problematic scene in the movie Boyhood. Please read the AV article, here, before you continue with mine. If you’re not familiar with the movie you can google it, but I recommend seeing it. See the trailer here, including rating information. It’s an enjoyable, but rather low-key drama, quite novel in that it was filmed very gradually, with the same actors over a period of 12 years. It has a very natural and organic quality to it as it focuses primarily on the main character, a boy, and his mom, sister and dad - in that order.

The author of the AV article raises a point that is worth exploring, however, I want to consider it from another angle. What if that scene was taken from a colorblind point of view? What if that of-the-cuff teacherly advice given to a young laborer who was repairing something at the teacher’s home were given by a teacher of any race to a “student/laborer” of any race? It’s typical advice about going to school and bettering oneself. The AV article characterizes the scene as having a

...cringeworthy white-savior aspect.

I have to disagree that it's ingrained racism or colonialism - it's simply a preachy teacher not unlike thousands of other real-life teachers and coaches who evangelize their education/betterment message. While it is not the theme of this movie, it is the main theme of dozens of other movies from To Sir With Love to Stand and Deliver. That particular scene is nothing more and nothing less that a teacher doing her thing and trying to promote education.

The movie is set in Texas, I live in Florida, both places with great population diversity, it is not unusual for a young person of any race or socioeconomic background, for that matter, to work such a job. Even many "rich white kids" work such jobs during the summer. Maybe it's a family business. I believe it’s more about blue-collar work versus white collar work. I think it is unnecessary to make any notation of race in this scene and in this movie. The entire movie is meant to be an intimate look into a few particular people’s lives.

The other dimension of the AV article’s criticism centered on the scene set many years later, when we see the interactions between the advice-giving teacher, the advice taking [former]laborer, and the children of the teacher. The later scene does play awkward - as the AV article notes. The student/laborer’s testimony is not much of a big deal to the teacher/mom’s young adult children - they do not register much about it at all! I find that to be a truly a natural reaction. The Bible says “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own home,” and I’d wager the same for a teacher, or anyone really, in the eyes of their own teenaged or young adult children. Sure, it served as a set up for the mom's final scene, it rang very true for me. The AV article noted the teacher/mom appeared to be only be a bit more affected than her children by the young man’s testimony of her positive influence. While awkward, it does also strike me as natural - that an accidental meeting and declaration of such kind, particularly out-of-context and during a family dinner in public, would play that way. If the young man sought her out on campus in her office or classroom, or even in her home, it could have engendered a different reaction. The AV article seems to be saying that these things are insensitive and a form of racism. That the mom/teacher's influence of the young laborer was not dully noted by her and her children, nor was he more than a blip on their radar seems rather typical of a stranger that one sees only twice in a dozen years.

There are probably people who have been kind to you or I over the years, who did something special for us, that would register similarly. The stranger who gave you a ride when you were broke down on the side of the road, the manager you worked for as a teen that gave you a nugget of wise advice that stayed with you all your life and served a good purpose. (Heck, I even wrote about a similar offhand remark having a profound impact on me, here.) It’s not prejudicial that we may no longer remember their names - it’s life. Typical stuff that happens to every one of us, and that is what this movie was about - all the natural, mundane aspects of our lives as we move and grow in various ways, and the cumulative effect they have.

50 Shades of Gray and A Quest for Fire

So much hoopla and buzz is swirling again now that the movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Gray is coming out. Full disclosure, I have not read the book and I am a so-called conservative “born-again” Jesus Christ-follower. I am also a feminist in the classic sense. So I would suppose that would already be two strikes against this book and movie for me. However, I will try to look at this from angles other than my own deeply felt faith, convictions and beliefs. This is basically my own editorializing, and this editorializing is from the point of view that is aside from any religious objection alone, as I'm sure there will be many such theological and religious people writing more eloquently than I on this movie/book and Christian faith and ethics. I'm just speaking to the general culture, a mix of religious and irreligious. Please be warned this may get grown-up and graphic and that can make sensitive and conservative folks uncomfortable. Since I myself am often one of those sensitive, conservative and oft-uncomfortable folk, I appreciate a warning. So, my fellows, this is that warning.

I’m not a prude, I have a past, rather adventurous, and perhaps because I’ve ventured some I can say this: What ever happened to good, old fashioned sex? You know, two people with chemistry, eye-to-eye, kiss-to-kiss, c*ck-to-p*ssy, come together or take turns, both are satisfied, a bit of spooning then sleep. Why do we need to push, poke and prod ourselves into outlandish and foreign territory? Isn’t an orgasm an orgasm? Are we debasing ourselves and each other by choking, spanking, spiking and binding ourselves in the search for more intensity? Can we ask ourselves is this healthy for our bodies? Is this healthy for our souls? Is this healthy for our emotions?

My second notion in regards to all of this would be - is “Gray” just another take on Beauty and The Beast; and therefore, just another in the long line of possibly warped fairy tails, tales indicative of a patriarchal and more uncivilized age? I like Beauty and The Beast, in particular I love the Jean Cocteau version, and am also fond of the Disney movie. However, there is a negative interpretation of these stories: a beastly, mean, rude, selfish man is transformed by the love of a patient, put-upon, good-natured, resourceful, beautiful woman. Her love, which was largely demonstrated by her tolerating her own discomfort and his prick-ish behaviour (in two senses of the word) is the agent of transformation. In one sense that is the essence of Christian love, i.e., The Loving and Innocent Jesus Christ sacrificing Himself to redeem all of man-and-womankind. And yes, all healthy human relationships succeed with a mutual and loving patience and tolerance. But in the context of “Gray” and “The Beast” is it really a healthy attitude for women to harbor that by their sweet love and suppression of their own best interests they can transform a egocentric jerk into a benevolent prince? Is it even healthy to still harbor these fantasies? I don’t know. “The heart wants what the heart wants.” I know quite a few women who persevered patiently like Belle but were never able to break the spell on their Beasts. And it wasn’t for lack of trying or waiting. So does all of this continue to feed into the old and outdated and unrealistic notion that women have to “fix” their men, and men are allowed somewhat of a pass on their untamed side? Why not just find a partner that’s not broken in the first place. (I know all of us are broken, but speaking in more excessive terms here.)

Is all of this sex game play really driving us farther away from each other, rather that closer? We are having a variety of "better sex" but do we have better love? There is a film that came out in the early 80s called Quest For Fire, and it is basically about the plight of primitive man in his search for making, finding and keeping fire, but it also touches on the greater themes of civilization such as art, cooperation, humor/laughter, and love/affection. In one very telling scene the “caveman” is taught a more personal, and thus fulfilling, way of mating with his “cavewoman” partner when she switches position from the animalistic “doggie-style” to the face-to-face, front-to-front position (missionary). They look into each other’s eyes, they smile. That my friends, it what life, love and sex is all about. It’s as if they’re saying, “Mmmm, hey you! This feels good!“ It’s more than the just act itself, it’s the intimate human connection. Please don’t take this as an endorsement for boring sex. The common wisdom of our age says that we need to spice it up when things get stagnant; and we do know that with the natural rhythms of life there are times when we need to rekindle the flames of love. Many claim that what is portrayed in "Gray" and its ilk are one effective way of spicing things up. A couples’ sex life should be fun, playful and satisfying. But above-all it should serve to strengthen their deep bond not weaken it. Do seek to revive something that has grown weak, but let your passion grow with a genuine, insightful and intuitive connection, not something dark and ultimately harmful. So I think my point is that sometimes the basic human connection gets lost in all the blindfolds and silk ties, and we can’t let that real spark die.

above photo by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattes