Not so sexist after all

Last night Zach and I continued along with our movie series at the Elsinore.  This one was from the early 1950’s, and it was called All About Eve.

On our way in, the theater handed us a program of sorts that included a few pages describing and somewhat dissecting the movie.  It mentioned that the movie probably wouldn’t play well in the modern era because of a particular line that is criticized as anti-feminist/anti-woman.

In the play, a 40 year old actress who has dedicated her long days and nights to her career,  says something to the effect that her life means nothing without a man in it.  On the surface level, that sounds pretty bad.  Before I met Zach, what I had to strive for was advancement in my career.  I also had great friends and family who gave my life meaning.  I wouldn’t say that life without him was meaningless, and certainly, it was not meaningless because of my gender.  However, in the context of the entire movie, it must be noted that she was talking about a particular man who had been her significant other for some time.

The character was not implying that her life lacked meaning because she was a woman, and women don’t matter if they are not attached to a man.  She was implying that there was someone who had stuck by her and pursued her even when she was being a pill, and that her life would be richer if she devoted some time to him.

It is one of the most basic human longings, to yearn for someone to share our lives with, someone we can trust, someone we can depend on long-term.  This is neither a uniquely male nor uniquely female desire, but a human desire.  And it is good.  Work is a part of our lives, and it is a good part of our lives, but it must be balanced by real connection and real love for our lives to have meaning.  Living simply to work is a disordered way of living.  While work can be a source of joy (and truly, I love my job) and a significant way to contribute to our communities, it is also a means of supporting the ones we love. 

I am not afraid to say that, while I feel proud of the work I’ve put into getting to where I’m at in a career I love, finding “the one” and having a (someday) family has always been a bigger goal to me than my career.  The reason the career came first is that attaining it was more within my control.  The fact that marriage/family is a more important goal to me might not be the “cool” thing to say, but it’s true, and I don’t feel it makes me any less a feminist.  I am sure there are plenty of men who prioritize their goals in similar ways, and ultimately I believe that this is a fundamentally good way of looking at things, and a sign that one’s priorities are in the right place.

As a side note, I would also like to add that there is a younger actress in this movie (“Eve”) who attempts to seduce the husbands of two women who are older than she is, and the husbands will have none of it.  They don’t even entertain the idea.  I don’t feel like I see very many shows or movies where this would be the case these days, and I found it refreshing.  (I also feel lucky and proud to have a fiancé who I believe with my whole heart is that kind of stand-up faithful man.)

Since a few weeks ago, I complained about how horrified I was that a movie from the 1950’s showcased domestic violence as both romantic and comedic, I felt that it was important to recognize that there is value to be gained from the culture of that particular decade.

The "Good Old Days"

I hear a lot of yearning for days gone by.  This is not just from people in my parents' and grandparents' generation, but peers as well.  Lots of posts on facebook reminisce about days when you played kickball out in the street until Mom called you in for dinner, and there were no cell phones or video games.  "Repost this list if you were born before 1985!" is not something hard to find.

Certainly, that reminiscing isn't without merit.  There are inherently good things about not having everything in life be available at your fingertips or open until 4am.  And we sure did connect in a more personal and genuine way when we couldn't hide behind email and text, and when we couldn't cancel on our friends at the last minute because they weren't carrying a phone around with them.  I definitely worry frequently about what my future children's lives will be like.  I don't want them having a cell phone or a social media account when they are 8 years old, but am I realistically going to be able to prevent those things?

However, my thesis statement of this post is that there are things about the modern era that are better than past eras.  Racial segregation comes immediately to mind.  In the not-so-distant past, interracial marriage was illegal in many parts of the country.  (HORRIFYING thought, if you ask me).

Here's another example.  Last night Zach and I went to the first installment of a weekly film series at the Elsinore Theater in downtown Salem.  They were showing "The Quiet Man," which is a 1952 movie starring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara.  In many ways it is a charming movie about good old-fashioned romance.  The protagonist sweeps into town, romances a pretty girl, and works at asking for her hand in marriage.

The movie also has a significant darker side.  Throughout the second half of the movie, the plot revolves around a newlywed conflict.  The new bride refuses to consummate the marriage because the protagonist fails to procure some treasured/sentimental belongings.  While this may be immature and unloving behavior, part of his reaction is to grab her, slam her against a wall, and force an unwanted kiss on her while roughly holding her head by her hair.  He then picks her up and throws her on the bed with such force that the bed frame falls apart.  I half-expected that he was going to rape her, and was relieved when he did not.  (Credit where credit is due: he does take the chivalrous course of sleeping in the living room on the floor in a sleeping bag, instead of on the busted bed with her.)

Roughing up a woman and forcing a kiss on her is NOT romantic.

The plot continues with her running away because he will not demand her dowry from her brother (again, bratty behavior on the part of the woman...).  he chases her down, then physically drags her all through town while a large crowd is following them.  They are watching, cheering as he drags her along the ground, occasionally slapping/shoving her.  He then brings her to her brother, shoves her at him, and says that if the brother won't give up the money, he can have his sister back.  This would be one thing if the purpose of this scene was to highlight how wrong it is to view a woman as a possession or how wrong spousal violence is, but this scene was intended as comedy (and was accompanied by laughs from much of the audience.  Since they were from a different generation, I did my best to be understanding about this).

While watching this scene, I could feel my chest constrict and my face get flushed.  Maureen O'Hara's character was not being a good or loving wife, but violence is NEVER an acceptable response except as reasonable self defense.  I felt horrified that this was ever seen as comedy and not abuse, and I feel grateful that this kind of scene passed off as "comedy" today would launch an outrage.

I do still think that racial and gender inequality are problems in the modern world, but I thank God they are less problematic than they were a couple of generations ago, back in the "good old days."

Perhaps one generation or era is not better than another, but instead each generation or era has its own strengths and weaknesses: things to be proud of, and things to work on.

Feel free to belt out the Joan Osborn song as necessary...

On Saturday afternoon, my fiance and I were relaxing and flipping through some TV channels.  We paused for a bit on a station that was playing The Passion of the Christ.  We talked a little bit about the movie itself, and then Zach asked me the greatest question:

"If Jesus came back to Earth today, in 2013, what would it take for you to believe it was him?"

Yikes!

I would like to say that I am so attuned to my faith and my prayer life that I would just know, the way some people "just know" early on in a new relationship that they have found "the one."

The truth?  My analytical side would be grinding its gears, trying to figure out what to make of things.  Being a still-new-ish social worker in a psychiatric hospital, I sometimes thing I get a little "diagnosis-happy" and perceive mental illness where it is not.  So my first thought about anyone claiming to be Jesus would most likely be schizophrenic.  Ouch.

But what if he performed an unexplainable miracle?  Truth is, I would still probably be poking at it, trying to find a scientific explanation for whatever happened.  Also, if, for example, someone was healed from an incurable disease, I might credit that to a miracle, but I might still not believe that the person claiming to be Jesus was Jesus.

So, anyway, it is a great question and I have to say that I don't know how to answer it.  Part of me is pretty defensive of my beliefs and I might doubt partially BECAUSE being Catholic is so important to me and I wouldn't want any old schmoe out there claiming to be Jesus.

I'm curious to see what other Christians make of this question.  Or non-Christians too.

Good question, honey.