Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Should I watch...



from here

The Perks of Being a Wallflower? No. Especially if you saw the preview and thought, “Hey! That looks like a movie I’d like to see!” I was pretty sure I’d enjoy this one, but I was wrong. For a start, teenagers are not that cool – I know, because I hang around with a lot, plus I used to be one. (And even the ones who are kinda cool aren’t completely sure of it – the vibe they give off is, I’m cool. At least, I’m pretty sure I’m cool. Do you think I’m cool? I really want you to think I’m cool). I haven’t read the book, but the impression I got from the film was that it was a story about teenagers that was too obviously written by an adult. It also seems (from the special features, which I watched after the movie to make sure I felt I was getting my money’s worth) that the book included far more story/background than the movie could, so it’s possible that reading the book first would have helped the characters to seem more realistic/relatable in the film. Alas.

I like that it wasn’t just another high school movie – there’s big mental health stuff going on, and it’s meatier than the usual “I’m so in love/hate with that boy/girl, but they don’t even know I exist/they hate me back. Op, now we’re together, and we’re soooo happy! Uh oh, I/they just did something to stuff it up. I’m/they’re going to reflect and cry and then apologise, probably in a very public place/way. Oh look, now we’re kissing. THE END” storylines, which is a good thing, but to really enjoy this film you have to not be too distracted by the fact the kids are so obviously not high school students. I was distracted. And disappointed.
 
from here
Silver Linings Playbook? Yes. Especially if you saw the preview and thought, “Hey! That looks like a movie I’d like to see!” I was pretty sure I’d enjoy this one, and then I started freaking out that my expectations were too high (I’d been let down by the Perks movie only a few weeks before), so, as I set up the DVD to play, I told myself over and over again that I probably wouldn’t like it as much as I thought I was going to. But I totally did. This one is also meatier than your average romcom (we need a new category: romdramcom? romdramedy?), again because it deals with mental health in a refreshing, this-is-real-so-let’s-not-pretend-we’re-all-normal kinda way. It could have been manipulative but it’s not, and it could have tried too hard, but it doesn’t. The acting is superb (I still can’t believe Jennifer Lawrence is only 21 [what did people do before special features were a thing?]!), the story is sweet, and I think I’d go so far as to say I LOVED IT.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Yin and yang



“Mostly I dig being a man. It’s awesome. And being a middle class white man? Holy crap. I don’t need to buy a lottery ticket because I won all the things just by turning up.” John Birmingham
from here
We had a female guest speaker at our church on Mothers Day. After the service, one of the mums came out to the crèche (I was looking after the kids that day, so had missed the talk) and told me she’d just heard her whole life described; she said that she’d never realised what a difference it could make hearing a sermon by a woman rather than a man. Her comments stuck with me because for the week or so beforehand my thoughts had repeatedly returned to this section of a blog post by Dianna Anderson (the emphasis is hers):

[W]hat does a heart attack look like?

If you said pain radiating in the left arm, constriction in the chest, rapid or irregular heartbeat, fainting, you’re basically right...if you're describing the symptoms for heart attacks in… men. Women experience nausea, back and jaw pain, shortness of breath, and vomiting.

You would think heart attack symptoms would be an objective science. That’s the narrative we’ve received for years and years – because the narrative has been dominated by supposedly “objective” white men. And because women were kept out of the sciences for centuries, and only relatively recently started becoming specialized doctors, study of female heart attack symptoms never really mattered because the men in charge of the studying didn’t think of how it might be different.

This is the danger – literal and figurative – of equating a white, male dominated discourse with “objectivity” even if you’re not trying to set it up as a hierarchy. Because of the patriarchal strictures within which we live and move, equating maleness with objectivity… demands that minorities drop their identities at the door and learn how to converse and discuss as white men in order to participate in “objective” discussion.

In a sermon a few weeks after that Sunday, our pastor was talking about God’s unconditional love for and acceptance of us. He said that knowing this allows us to talk to God even when we’re in our deepest sin, “whether it’s lust, whether it’s sex, whether it’s pornography, whether it’s, um, adultery, whether it’s… you know, whatever it is, whether it’s greed, whether it’s… anything,” he said. Although I could have dwelt on the greed one for a while, I found this skewed list distracting rather than convicting; it made me wonder how many in the congregation would come up with the same examples (or even just a couple of these) if they were put on the spot and asked to share their biggest struggles. How many of these would be men? And how many women?

One more example: A while ago I met with our minister to talk about a paper I’d written in response to a paper he’d written (and asked for my thoughts on) on women in the church. We’d been talking for a while when I surprised us both by bursting into tears while discussing the topic of God as ‘Father’ (I said something along the lines of, “God is genderless” and he said something along the lines of, “Wow, I’d never thought about ‘Father’ being a gendered term”). I realised at that moment that he was satisfied with the Father metaphor above others in the Bible mostly because it was one he could completely relate to. And yet the picture he’d always chosen for God highlighted the aspects of God that looked very much like him, and very little like me (or more than half of his congregation).
I say my minister ‘chose’ this picture because the Bible offers a range of metaphors for God, many of which are feminine. Yet, in the churches I’ve been a part of, God has only been “Our Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:9) and never also “the God who gave you birth” (Deuteronomy 32:18)*. The omission is innocent rather than intentional; the structure of most of the churches I know seems to be based on the assumption that the Bible is able to be interpreted and talked about and applied in an objective bubble, completely untainted by an individual’s background, so it doesn’t matter that the preacher and the leadership team are all males (and, in these parts, predominantly white and middle class) – they’re able to speak and decide for everyone. And yet, this bubble is a dream. No one comes to the Bible like that.

(I should clarify that I’m not suggesting that all men in a congregation are able to relate to a male preacher’s sermons or decisions, or that no women are able to; unlike my friend, I had no Killing Me Softly moment when I listened to the female speaker’s Mothers Day talk. Just as men and women can be different from each other, so are many women different from other women, and many men different from other men.**)

It strikes me as particularly odd that those who seem most convinced of the vast differences between men and women and the roles each should play have no problem with the fact that their congregations hear either mostly or only from men about what life, and God, is like. If both men and women are created in God’s image, as the first chapter of Genesis tells us we are, and men and women are so very different, as many complementarians tell us we are, then surely we’re leaving half of the picture unpainted in churches where only men are offered a chance to share their perspectives on Sundays? The ironic thing is that this is the ‘complementarian’ view, and yet we see very little complementarity played out when it’s one sex doing all of the talking in and for the church and the other doing all of the listening.

The week before last, Pru Goward, Minister for Women and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, was on the radio talking about her desire to see more women in typically male-heavy careers, such as the military and trades, because she said that men who work alongside women in the same or similar roles are usually far less sexist than those who don’t. I noticed while reading How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership (compiled by Alan F. Johnson) how many of the men started rethinking their views on women in the church because their wives challenged them (often implicitly) to do so; working alongside a woman even in a marriage seems to have the same effect for many men. When I asked Alan about it, he admitted that if he were single, he probably wouldn’t have looked into the topic as much as he has done as a married man.

It seems that sympathy is a fundamental part of the way people relate to and love each other, and yet if there’s little to no space for the voices of women*** in our churches, how can our stories, our understanding of the Bible, the metaphors for God we latch onto as key ones, be heard and understood and therefore sympathised with? Can we as the church truly love one another if we don’t have the chance to truly sympathise with each other? And if we can’t and don’t truly love each other, how will others know that we’re Jesus’ disciples (John 13:34)? Can we truly be united as one redeemed and perfect body if so many members must repeatedly fight to balance what they know of God and the Bible with what’s implied in the structure and teaching of their church: “Because I’m not male, I don’t really belong to the body” (1 Corinthians 12:12-31). There’s no complementarity here; we’re all yin, no yang. 

It breaks my heart.


///


* Is God’s Nature ”Father” and not ”Mother”? is a really interesting post on God’s Fatherhood versus God’s Motherhood. And If God is male... is a really interesting read on God and gender.

** Though I’ve been talking specifically about men and women, if I was going to turn this from a lament into an argument, it wouldn’t be an argument for women preaching or leading as much as an argument for preaching or leadership teams, made up of a group of a people whose gifts and backgrounds and experiences and personalities and genders better display and represent the complementary variety of Christ’s body.

*** …or single people, or non-Caucasian people, or homosexual people, or refugees, or any other group whose voices are currently not heard (or not heard enough) in Anglican churches in this city…

///

This post came out after I’d written the above, but it’s relevant, and I enjoyed it.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

'Random stories' or 'Excerpt from my imaginary memoir'

from here
After school I moved from Armidale to the Gold Coast to live with my brother and sister, along with a guy named Troy who was perpetually stoned and ate my food, and Sharon, who was my favourite person in the world for my whole 10-or-so months there. Sharon was from Wolverhampton and she adopted me as her little sister/partner-in-crime almost immediately. The two of us worked in a tiny office together and she used to chain smoke while making jokes about our company’s clients, employees and boss. We spent an awful lot of time together – less after she moved out with her boyfriend once our apartment started bursting at the seams – but I never tired of her company. I visited her and her family on our overlapping holidays in England at the end of that year, and I missed her terribly when I first moved to Sydney, but we never did well at talking on the phone and we soon lost touch. I haven’t spoken to her now for over 10 years. She’s probably given me lung cancer.

Throughout uni I lived with Owen, a friend of my then-boyfriend’s, and with his awful cat, Polly, who actually wasn’t Owen’s but belonged to his ex-girlfriend who he was still completely in love with though daring to suggest such a thing would most certainly NOT GO DOWN WELL. At first Polly lived with us because Bec (the ex) was overseas for a couple of years, and then, when Bec returned, Polly continued to live with us because Bec moved in somewhere that didn’t allow cats (I swear she made this up). I did not like that cat. I did like Owen, though; he was silly and kind and reminded me a lot of my brother. Plus he worked most nights and slept most days, had his own bathroom, and ate out often, so we were out of each others’ way most of the time. If it wasn’t for Polly, it would have been the flatmate match made in heaven – I only remember having one argument with him in the few years we lived together, and it was about that wretched cat.

I avoided the cat as much as possible. All of her things were in his room to make it clear that Polly wasn’t my responsibility, however this also meant that I was unaware of when or whether she got fed. Despite my lack of love for the creature, I did feel a twang of concern when she started jumping off our fourth floor balcony; whether she’d originally thought to commit suicide but accidentally landed on the balcony below and then realised there was cat food there, or whether she’d been eyeing off the food for days and decided it was worth the risk, I’ll never know. If it didn’t start as the latter, it certainly ended up that way; she made the jump at least a few times before our neighbours downstairs indicated their unhappiness with the situation and Owen started doing a better job of keeping her bowls regularly stocked.

(This reminds me of another terrible pet story from my Gold Coast sharehouse; I’d been the only one home for a few days before deciding to head off to see family for the weekend. While I was away I received a call from Sharon, who’d returned home earlier that day; our conversation went something like this:

S: BELLE! We’ve killed Jed’s bird!
B: We’ve killed what?
S: Jed’s bird! It’s dead!
B: Jed has a bird?!
S: Had a bird. HAD A BIRD!

This is why when you assume your flatmates know about all pets and will feed them when necessary, you make an ass out of u, me, and your poor budgerigar.*)

Unfortunately Owen started a new job in Newcastle, and so he and Polly had to move. He called me a few times on his last day in Sydney, though I ignored him because I was certain he wanted to organise taking my (FINE, it was his) fridge away (I’d been hanging on to it while he checked whether Bec wanted it, and he’d given the impression he’d only call if she did; in my defence, I was a very broke uni student with no idea how to survive without a fridge). When I chatted to him a few days later I found out he’d been calling to offer me his incredibly soft and gorgeous and wonderful Bay Swiss couch because it wouldn’t fit on the truck and he didn’t want to leave it on the side of the road. Alas, I hadn’t answered his call, and he’d left it on the side of the road. This is one of the big regrets of my life. After that call I visited him once in Newcastle, and then, a few years later, I ran into him briefly in Armidale. That’s the extent of our contact post-flatting.

///

I’m not entirely sure what inspired my memory of these past flatmates, or why sentences and paragraphs about them suddenly began forming during a shower last week, or why I felt so compelled to capture these words before they evaporated like so many before them. I’ve been sitting on this post, trying to think up an introduction and conclusion, and for a while added this to the end:
…these stories have had me reflecting on the different relationships that come and go across a lifetime; there are some people who are so there during one season (or more), and then so not there when life moves on. And then there are those who turn up and build homes in your heart and stay forever, although it takes the passing of many years and the changing of many seasons to realise that’s what’s happened.
But it’s so wanky, and my reflections were probably caused more by the fact that I was searching for a beginning and end to my blog post to make sense of the fact that I’d felt a random urge to write exactly what’s here; nothing more, nothing less. If the un-tethered-ness annoys you, think of it as an excerpt from my memoir, The Not-Particularly-Fascinating Life Story of Belle. And be thankful I currently have no more of it to write.

///

* I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a budgerigar, although I never actually saw the bird, alive or dead. It was a choice between ‘budgerigar’, ‘cockatiel’ or ‘parrot’ (these are the only types of pet bird I know), and I decided the first sounded the most amusing.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Infidelity



from here

There’s a song from the 70s I used to sing along to in the 90s that featured the line, “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” I’m not a huge fan of the suggestion or the song, but I’ve had it stuck in my head an awful lot since I discovered – during my break from Mad Men – that I was developing extremely strong feelings for Downton Abbey. I’m currently with neither of them, and I don’t know which I desire more: Mad Men season five or the second season of Downton?

I feel terrible.