Some time ago, when Facebook came out with its "Custom" gender category, some friends of mine were rallying us all to change our genders from Male or Female to one of the custom types, as a way of showing solidarity with people who can't easily assign themselves to a binary gender category. For example, the custom genders which apply to people who fit well into the traditional categories are "Cis Male" and "Cis Female."
So I went into the list to look for an appropriate gender. And found myself stymied. When the choice is binary, it's obvious which side of the boundary I fall on. I have never questioned the gender I was assigned at birth. But when gender is portrayed as a spectrum, I simply can't bring myself to identify as "Cis Female." There are far too many aspects of that gender role that just don't fit.
In the past I've simply copped an attitude about it: This is what a woman looks like. Get used to it. But now I've been presented with an actual choice. Eventually I changed my gender from "Female" to "Gender Non-Conforming," and called it done.
This morning I was editing my profile, and noticed it had reverted back to "Female" again, so I went back in and reinstated the new designation. And that got me thinking about it again.
What does it mean to be "Gender Non-Conforming"? To quote a smattering of online sources, gender non-conformity is "behaving or appearing in ways that are considered atypical for one's gender." A gender non-conformist's "behavior or gender expression. . .does not match cultural expectations about the gender roles typically associated with their sex assignment," and they "do not adhere to society's rules about dress and activities for people that are based on their sex."
That would be me, all right. I was a tomboy as a child. I hated playing with dolls. I am a scientist and an engineer. I have always been fiercely independent, and I desire an egalitarian relationship with my partner. I detest housework; I love to build things. And as for heels and makeup? wtf? It's true that I'm primarily attracted to men, but the men I'm attracted to are similarly outside the traditional norm. Big hunky guys are anathema to me: I prefer a mate who is thin, with delicate features and artistic sensibilities. And when I dance, I enjoy flirting with women as much as with men.
As a young adult I attended a pro-choice rally in NYC, and while I was there I bought a T-shirt. It was different from most of the pro-choice merchandise: rather than a specific reference to a woman's right to choose an abortion, it was emblazoned with the single word CHOICE.
Yep, I thought. That about sums it up.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Joshua Fit De Battle
The chorus I'm in recently started learning an arrangement of Joshua Fit de Battle of Jericho, a song that my daughter also performed in her chorus last year. She was surprised by the differences between the two arrangements, so we looked up some other performances on youtube (would you believe Elvis Presley, of all people, did a recording of it?) In the process we got to talking about the story behind the song, which I didn't remember well enough to share with her, so we looked that up too.
Reviewing the story of Jericho reminded me of just why it is that Christianity has such a hard time championing the "good" side of "good vs. evil."
Joshua came out of the wilderness with the Israelites, taking over leadership of the tribe after Moses' death. Their ancestors had been slaves in Egypt, and they were still living as nomads two generations after their escape. But when Joshua succeeded Moses, they went to the city of Jericho, invaded and conquered that city, and murdered every man, woman, and child who lived there before moving in themselves. The one exception was the family of a woman who had given them aid in spying on the city before the attack. She did this not because she thought their cause was right, but because she was afraid of them.
So when we celebrate Joshua, we're celebrating unprovoked violence. We're celebrating genocide. We're celebrating the oppressed rising up, not against the oppressor, but against innocent bystanders. We're celebrating a moral standard that justifies murder and theft, done purely for selfish ends. And we are celebrating the might of a God who not only condones such behavior, but commands it and helps his people succeed at it.
The song is still exciting and engaging to sing, but I'm having serious reservations about its moral content. At a guess, I'd say that most people who read this story gloss over its barbarism, and either invent rationalizations for it or avoid the subject entirely. But it's a bit like keeping a land mine in the back yard, don't you think? Its presence in the center of the accepted canon of God's Word leaves open the eternal possibility that some day, Christians will return en masse to a morality that condones expansionist genocide.
Reviewing the story of Jericho reminded me of just why it is that Christianity has such a hard time championing the "good" side of "good vs. evil."
Joshua came out of the wilderness with the Israelites, taking over leadership of the tribe after Moses' death. Their ancestors had been slaves in Egypt, and they were still living as nomads two generations after their escape. But when Joshua succeeded Moses, they went to the city of Jericho, invaded and conquered that city, and murdered every man, woman, and child who lived there before moving in themselves. The one exception was the family of a woman who had given them aid in spying on the city before the attack. She did this not because she thought their cause was right, but because she was afraid of them.
So when we celebrate Joshua, we're celebrating unprovoked violence. We're celebrating genocide. We're celebrating the oppressed rising up, not against the oppressor, but against innocent bystanders. We're celebrating a moral standard that justifies murder and theft, done purely for selfish ends. And we are celebrating the might of a God who not only condones such behavior, but commands it and helps his people succeed at it.
The song is still exciting and engaging to sing, but I'm having serious reservations about its moral content. At a guess, I'd say that most people who read this story gloss over its barbarism, and either invent rationalizations for it or avoid the subject entirely. But it's a bit like keeping a land mine in the back yard, don't you think? Its presence in the center of the accepted canon of God's Word leaves open the eternal possibility that some day, Christians will return en masse to a morality that condones expansionist genocide.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)