With Thanksgiving less than a week away, many minds and hearts are turned towards our families, the people who are related to us by blood. Personally, my family is very important to me, though I'm not very showy about it (I'll try to call more often). Our families are the first people we are able to interact with, to socialize and bond with. They are our first teachers, our first disciplinarians, and our first friends. But family is a lot more than that. Families are traditions and customs. Things passed from generation to generation, even if the meaning is lost. Family is our roots. There are many people who will say that certain traits or attributes are "in our blood." Sure, in our scientific age, we can simply call this "genetics" but where's the magic in that?
There's a passage of dialogue in Robertson Davies' "The Rebel Angels" which talks about people using this analogy of "roots" and what makes us who we are.
No splendid crown without the strong root that works in the dark, drawing its nourishment among the rocks, the soil, hidden waters, and all the little, burrowing things. A man is like that; his splendors and his fruits are to be seen, to win him love and admiration. But what about the root?
Have you ever seen a bulldozer clearing land? It advances upon a great tree and shoves and pushes inexorably until the tree is down and thrust out of the way, and all of that effort is accompanied by a screaming and wrenching sound from the tree as the great roots are torn from the ground. It is a particularly distressing kind of death. And when the tree is upturned, the root proves to be as big as the crown.
What is the root of man? All sorts of things that nourish his visible part, but the deepest root of all, the tap-root, is that child he once was...That is the root that goes deepest because it is reaching downward towards the ancestors.
The imagery of a tree being forcefully, and violently, torn from the ground encapsulates what it can mean for a person to try and tear themselves away from their history. Many people feel some kinship to their past, be it culturally, racially, or even spiritually. Attempting to abandon that connection, or being unable to express that part of ourselves can be a trying and painful time.
Even when placed in a situation or place where they are away from their kin, people strive to hold onto the values of their roots. In the immigrant tradition of the United States, when people from other countries integrated into our culture, they still very often held to their own traditional beliefs too. In doing this, they also sought to be around people who shared those customs, resulting in ethnic neighborhoods like Chinatowns and Little Italies all across the country.
So, when you're sitting down to the turkey and dressing or whatever you have when celebrating Thanksgiving this year, ask around and learn a bit more about what makes you who you are. Ask about your history. Your roots.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Virginity - Crown or Curse?
Yeah, it was only a matter of time before sex came up as a topic in one of these posts. And, to anyone who has had sex, nothing can be as shaping of a person's sex life as their first time.
But there's a bit of a dilemma here. A conflict of interest, if you will. Even today, if you're a young woman, you're often told to wait to have sex while young men are told that it's alright to have sex and are even encouraged to have sex. The operative word in the previous statement is "often" because it's no longer ALWAYS the case. Parenting has gone from a case of "do's" or "do not's" and turned into a resigned "be safe". Where did this come from? When did it start? Has virginity become more of a liability than a asset? In today's highly sexualized society, it seems that virginity carries a strange stigma. In fact, stating that you are a virgin beyond your twenties conjures up images of people who are socially inept and/or emotionally stunted. Why wouldn't someone have sex unless there were something stopping them? At least, that appears to be the mindset of society today.
Amusingly, this kind of attitude isn't new. In fact, the Shakespearean character Parolles gives a rather well made argument for giving up one's virginity as soon as possible...
It is not politic in the commonwealth of nature to preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational increase, and there was never virgin got till virginity was first lost. That you were made of is metal to make virgins. Virginity by being once lost may be ten times found; by being ever kept is ever lost. 'Tis too cold a companion. Away with it! 'Tis against the rule of nature. To speak on the part of virginity is to accuse your mothers, which is most infallible disobedience. He that hangs himself is a virgin; virginity murders itself, and should be buried in highways out of all sanctified limit, as a desperate offendress against nature. Virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese, consumes itself to the very paring, and so dies with feeding his own stomach. Besides, virginity is peevish, proud, idle, made of self-love, which is the most inhibited sin in the canon. Keep it not; you cannot choose but lose by it. Out with it! Within ten year it will make itself ten, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse. Away with it! 'Tis a commodity will lose the gloss with lying: the longer kept, the less worth. Off with it while 'tis vendible; answer the time of request. Virginity, like an old courtier, wears her cap out of fashion, richly suited, but unsuitable, just like the brooch and the toothpick, which wear not now. Your date is better in your pie and your porridge than in your cheek; and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it looks ill, it eats drily.
Now...what exactly is Parolles arguing? For all the high language, he is simply saying that, to stay a virgin isn't natural. That animals in nature don't maintain their virginities and so humans shouldn't either. He also says that virginity, like any commodity, will become less attractive as time passes. That a person who holds onto their virginity too long will eventually be unable to find someone who wants it. That seems to be very much the case today. Especially with movies and television, it seems like every other title focuses around finding someone to have sex with or the aftermath of having sex with the wrong person...usually fixed by having sex with the right person.
While not an extremely recent film, one that exemplifies this idea the best is The Forty Year Old Virgin. Just the title alone has the reader wondering what could be "wrong" with someone for them to be a virgin at forty years old. Of course, the film pretty much takes those previously stated "virgin stereotypes" by making the title character socially awkward with low self esteem. And, it's only in his pursuit of sex does he manage to become a more well rounded person...although his friends (who have all already had sex) have their lives more or less turn to crap due to their bad decisions.
Of course, virginity has never really been a badge of honor for men. Even across cultures, it's always been women who are expected to remain celibate before marriage. In some ways, this new view of sexuality has grown as a form of empowerment to some women. Rather than clinging to their "purity" as a sign of self worth, they discard it in exchange for a "freer" sexual lifestyle.
Funny how after all that, I haven't actually answered the title question. What's your take on it? Has virginity lost its importance? Is it a hinderance or is it no longer even an issue?
But there's a bit of a dilemma here. A conflict of interest, if you will. Even today, if you're a young woman, you're often told to wait to have sex while young men are told that it's alright to have sex and are even encouraged to have sex. The operative word in the previous statement is "often" because it's no longer ALWAYS the case. Parenting has gone from a case of "do's" or "do not's" and turned into a resigned "be safe". Where did this come from? When did it start? Has virginity become more of a liability than a asset? In today's highly sexualized society, it seems that virginity carries a strange stigma. In fact, stating that you are a virgin beyond your twenties conjures up images of people who are socially inept and/or emotionally stunted. Why wouldn't someone have sex unless there were something stopping them? At least, that appears to be the mindset of society today.
Amusingly, this kind of attitude isn't new. In fact, the Shakespearean character Parolles gives a rather well made argument for giving up one's virginity as soon as possible...
It is not politic in the commonwealth of nature to preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational increase, and there was never virgin got till virginity was first lost. That you were made of is metal to make virgins. Virginity by being once lost may be ten times found; by being ever kept is ever lost. 'Tis too cold a companion. Away with it! 'Tis against the rule of nature. To speak on the part of virginity is to accuse your mothers, which is most infallible disobedience. He that hangs himself is a virgin; virginity murders itself, and should be buried in highways out of all sanctified limit, as a desperate offendress against nature. Virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese, consumes itself to the very paring, and so dies with feeding his own stomach. Besides, virginity is peevish, proud, idle, made of self-love, which is the most inhibited sin in the canon. Keep it not; you cannot choose but lose by it. Out with it! Within ten year it will make itself ten, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse. Away with it! 'Tis a commodity will lose the gloss with lying: the longer kept, the less worth. Off with it while 'tis vendible; answer the time of request. Virginity, like an old courtier, wears her cap out of fashion, richly suited, but unsuitable, just like the brooch and the toothpick, which wear not now. Your date is better in your pie and your porridge than in your cheek; and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it looks ill, it eats drily.
Now...what exactly is Parolles arguing? For all the high language, he is simply saying that, to stay a virgin isn't natural. That animals in nature don't maintain their virginities and so humans shouldn't either. He also says that virginity, like any commodity, will become less attractive as time passes. That a person who holds onto their virginity too long will eventually be unable to find someone who wants it. That seems to be very much the case today. Especially with movies and television, it seems like every other title focuses around finding someone to have sex with or the aftermath of having sex with the wrong person...usually fixed by having sex with the right person.
While not an extremely recent film, one that exemplifies this idea the best is The Forty Year Old Virgin. Just the title alone has the reader wondering what could be "wrong" with someone for them to be a virgin at forty years old. Of course, the film pretty much takes those previously stated "virgin stereotypes" by making the title character socially awkward with low self esteem. And, it's only in his pursuit of sex does he manage to become a more well rounded person...although his friends (who have all already had sex) have their lives more or less turn to crap due to their bad decisions.
Of course, virginity has never really been a badge of honor for men. Even across cultures, it's always been women who are expected to remain celibate before marriage. In some ways, this new view of sexuality has grown as a form of empowerment to some women. Rather than clinging to their "purity" as a sign of self worth, they discard it in exchange for a "freer" sexual lifestyle.
Funny how after all that, I haven't actually answered the title question. What's your take on it? Has virginity lost its importance? Is it a hinderance or is it no longer even an issue?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Slight Shift In Direction
So, I've had this blog for just over a month and already find myself shifting focus somewhat. Not sure if that's a sign of personal growth (which is a good thing) or a sign that I'm easily distracted (not quite so good). Since literature is often the way writers hold a mirror up to the world and reflect back to us some of the things we may (or may not) be aware of, I'm going to be using that same method to point out things in today's society/culture/world that we may not have noticed or simply taken for granted.
And we can hope that I don't change my mind again in another month.
And we can hope that I don't change my mind again in another month.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Princess Evolution
So, earlier this week, I stumbled across another blog where a person was stating a rather strong opinion about Disney's "The Princess and The Frog". It's not really important what that view was but part of the argument acted as a springboard to a much broader topic in general. Part of the other blogger's post pointed out that the male lead of the film (Prince Naveen) was a lazy, unskilled, playboy. Having seen the film myself I can say...that's a very accurate depiction of the character. At least through the first three quarters of the film. But, as the film progresses, you find the character adapt and evolve through his interactions with the main female character, Tiana.
Now, as I was thinking about this, I began to wonder about the previous "Disney princess" films and make comparisons. The results were rather interesting. In several ways, "The Princess and The Frog" was in the minority as far as character development through the story and character interactions.
First, lets take a moment to consider previous Disney princesses and their respective "princes". In order of first appearance, the princesses are...
Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Pocahontas
Mulan
Tiana
In the case of the first three (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora), the characters have about as much depth as a rain puddle. But, then again, they aren't really supposed to have depth. They're characters from stories that are meant to be told over the course of several minutes. They walk around and do things and that's essentially it. Their love interests are equally stiff and even to truly call them "love interests" is a stretch. All three see their mates only a few times and know immediately that they're meant to be (technically, Aurora sees hers three times). Again, I understand that these are children's fairytales so realism is relegated to the back of the bus on this one.
Ah, Disney's "Golden Age". Computer generated graphics were the newest thing and Disney couldn't go wrong cranking out one classic after another. Here is where things take a bit of a shift. Rather than just taking old stories and making them last an hour, Disney begins actually breathing some semblance of realism into its characters. Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, Pocahontas, and Mulan fall into this category and each one of these characters that the previous three did not. Attitude (to varying degrees). All five of them are somewhat outsiders in their respective worlds. Ariel and Belle are both dreamers longing for worlds that are denies to them either by gender or biology (merfolk aren't very graceful on land). Pocahontas and Jasmine are both royalty in their culture though find themselves reticent to marry those most "suited" to them by status or class. Mulan seems to be unable to fit within the restricting constraints of femininity imposed by a patriarchal Chinese culture. So, now you have these female leads who are rocking the boat a bit, giving audiences a more identifiable personality to relate to. The men in these films, however, seem to be a step behind. Prince Eric (Little Mermaid) is essentially a handsome face who doesn't want to settle down until he sees a hot redhead and instantly wants to tie the knot. Sounds like a lot of marriage stories in Vegas. Aladdin is another character who doesn't really change much. He's a nice, but poor, guy who carries around the "Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover" sign well enough but that's it. He sees a hot girl and wants a hot girl and basically does whatever he can to get her including lying about who he is and how much money he has to impress her. Damn, are we STILL talking about Vegas? The Beast is the first male lead in one of these films that actually shows signs of development. At the beginning of the story, he's a jerk on his best days. He knows that he has to find a woman to love him and yet he still holds Belle against her will and actually throws her in his dungeon (hey, no one said the guy was bright). In fact, it's at the suggestion of another character, that he gives her an actual room to live in. Over time, though, he learns how to actually treat another human being. The pivotal moment comes when Belle learns that her father has become lost in the forest. The Beast knows that, if he lets her leave, she may never come back but he has grown so much as a character that he willingly lets her leave, even if it means forgoing becoming human. In Pocahontas, we have kind of a "watered down" attempt at character development in the case of John Smith. Here's a guy who has apparently made a life (and quite the reputation) for himself going to new worlds and helping to subjugate the natives. However, one eyeful of a long-haired Native American in a mini-skirt in front of a waterfall (oh, and a musical number) is enough to change what is no doubt YEARS of personal experience. What, did the last village not sing on key or something?? Finally, in this group, is Mulan's beau Li Shang. His entire purpose is to train his army and to lead that army. When Mulan appears to be a hindrance to this task, he can't stand her. When she appears to be a worthwhile soldier, he respects her. When it's revealed she's a woman, he turns away from her. When she comes up with a way to save the Emperor, he respects her. It seems like his mood is dependent on what is appropriate for the story. He couldn't respect the fact that she went through all that training with the other men AND saved his life, but manages to do so right at the end? I'm not sure if that's character development or the story using him as a puppet.
Jump ahead just over a decade and we have Disney's newest entry into the princess lineup. This film is filled with several noteable firsts worth mentioning. Most obvious, this is the first African-American princess in the Disney lineup. Also, this is the first Disney princess film where the action takes place in an "American" setting (It wasn't America in Pocahontas so that doesn't count). Tiana, the story's princess, is a young woman who has a hellacious work ethic all driven by a dream to open up a restaurant. Unfortunately, this all consuming desire leaves her with nothing that might resemble an actual life. This is where Tiana stands apart from other Disney princesses. She actually has a FLAW! Not a quirk. Not something that just makes her unique but an actual character flaw. The film is just as much about Tiana overcoming this flaw as it is about finding "true love" (Disney's princess staple). That brings us back to Naveen. As I said before, at the start of the film he's a good-for-nothing, philandering lady's man who wants nothing more than to maintain that lifestyle on someone else's dime. In fact, his prime motivation at the start of the film is to find a rich woman and marry her (damn, we're back in Vegas!). However, just like Tiana, Naveen changes over the course of the movie and comes to realize that money doesn't equal happiness. So, not only do we have the male and female leads growing as characters, but we have another interesting development shown before only in Beauty and the Beast. The characters DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER at the start of the film. In fact, they're complete opposites to one another. Admittedly, that sounds more like the premise to a romantic comedy but I actually LIKE this movie so I won't insult it in that way. Still, the fact that these two characters start at odds with one another and, through shared experiences, come to understand and relate to one another shows a definite growth in Disney's ability to tell a story. Another way this film is in the minority is that the hero...isn't all that heroic. In the other films, the hero usually has some kind of showdown with the villain. In this film, it's Tiana who must confront the villain at the end of the film and ultimately defeats him. The only other place this really happens is in Mulan.
So, whether Disney simply decided to make the characters more well rounded or their style has evolved to this point, I think that they've come a long way from where all it took to snag a princess was royal breathing and making sure you didn't have halitosis before kissing her.
Now, as I was thinking about this, I began to wonder about the previous "Disney princess" films and make comparisons. The results were rather interesting. In several ways, "The Princess and The Frog" was in the minority as far as character development through the story and character interactions.
First, lets take a moment to consider previous Disney princesses and their respective "princes". In order of first appearance, the princesses are...
Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Pocahontas
Mulan
Tiana
In the case of the first three (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora), the characters have about as much depth as a rain puddle. But, then again, they aren't really supposed to have depth. They're characters from stories that are meant to be told over the course of several minutes. They walk around and do things and that's essentially it. Their love interests are equally stiff and even to truly call them "love interests" is a stretch. All three see their mates only a few times and know immediately that they're meant to be (technically, Aurora sees hers three times). Again, I understand that these are children's fairytales so realism is relegated to the back of the bus on this one.
Ah, Disney's "Golden Age". Computer generated graphics were the newest thing and Disney couldn't go wrong cranking out one classic after another. Here is where things take a bit of a shift. Rather than just taking old stories and making them last an hour, Disney begins actually breathing some semblance of realism into its characters. Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, Pocahontas, and Mulan fall into this category and each one of these characters that the previous three did not. Attitude (to varying degrees). All five of them are somewhat outsiders in their respective worlds. Ariel and Belle are both dreamers longing for worlds that are denies to them either by gender or biology (merfolk aren't very graceful on land). Pocahontas and Jasmine are both royalty in their culture though find themselves reticent to marry those most "suited" to them by status or class. Mulan seems to be unable to fit within the restricting constraints of femininity imposed by a patriarchal Chinese culture. So, now you have these female leads who are rocking the boat a bit, giving audiences a more identifiable personality to relate to. The men in these films, however, seem to be a step behind. Prince Eric (Little Mermaid) is essentially a handsome face who doesn't want to settle down until he sees a hot redhead and instantly wants to tie the knot. Sounds like a lot of marriage stories in Vegas. Aladdin is another character who doesn't really change much. He's a nice, but poor, guy who carries around the "Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover" sign well enough but that's it. He sees a hot girl and wants a hot girl and basically does whatever he can to get her including lying about who he is and how much money he has to impress her. Damn, are we STILL talking about Vegas? The Beast is the first male lead in one of these films that actually shows signs of development. At the beginning of the story, he's a jerk on his best days. He knows that he has to find a woman to love him and yet he still holds Belle against her will and actually throws her in his dungeon (hey, no one said the guy was bright). In fact, it's at the suggestion of another character, that he gives her an actual room to live in. Over time, though, he learns how to actually treat another human being. The pivotal moment comes when Belle learns that her father has become lost in the forest. The Beast knows that, if he lets her leave, she may never come back but he has grown so much as a character that he willingly lets her leave, even if it means forgoing becoming human. In Pocahontas, we have kind of a "watered down" attempt at character development in the case of John Smith. Here's a guy who has apparently made a life (and quite the reputation) for himself going to new worlds and helping to subjugate the natives. However, one eyeful of a long-haired Native American in a mini-skirt in front of a waterfall (oh, and a musical number) is enough to change what is no doubt YEARS of personal experience. What, did the last village not sing on key or something?? Finally, in this group, is Mulan's beau Li Shang. His entire purpose is to train his army and to lead that army. When Mulan appears to be a hindrance to this task, he can't stand her. When she appears to be a worthwhile soldier, he respects her. When it's revealed she's a woman, he turns away from her. When she comes up with a way to save the Emperor, he respects her. It seems like his mood is dependent on what is appropriate for the story. He couldn't respect the fact that she went through all that training with the other men AND saved his life, but manages to do so right at the end? I'm not sure if that's character development or the story using him as a puppet.
Jump ahead just over a decade and we have Disney's newest entry into the princess lineup. This film is filled with several noteable firsts worth mentioning. Most obvious, this is the first African-American princess in the Disney lineup. Also, this is the first Disney princess film where the action takes place in an "American" setting (It wasn't America in Pocahontas so that doesn't count). Tiana, the story's princess, is a young woman who has a hellacious work ethic all driven by a dream to open up a restaurant. Unfortunately, this all consuming desire leaves her with nothing that might resemble an actual life. This is where Tiana stands apart from other Disney princesses. She actually has a FLAW! Not a quirk. Not something that just makes her unique but an actual character flaw. The film is just as much about Tiana overcoming this flaw as it is about finding "true love" (Disney's princess staple). That brings us back to Naveen. As I said before, at the start of the film he's a good-for-nothing, philandering lady's man who wants nothing more than to maintain that lifestyle on someone else's dime. In fact, his prime motivation at the start of the film is to find a rich woman and marry her (damn, we're back in Vegas!). However, just like Tiana, Naveen changes over the course of the movie and comes to realize that money doesn't equal happiness. So, not only do we have the male and female leads growing as characters, but we have another interesting development shown before only in Beauty and the Beast. The characters DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER at the start of the film. In fact, they're complete opposites to one another. Admittedly, that sounds more like the premise to a romantic comedy but I actually LIKE this movie so I won't insult it in that way. Still, the fact that these two characters start at odds with one another and, through shared experiences, come to understand and relate to one another shows a definite growth in Disney's ability to tell a story. Another way this film is in the minority is that the hero...isn't all that heroic. In the other films, the hero usually has some kind of showdown with the villain. In this film, it's Tiana who must confront the villain at the end of the film and ultimately defeats him. The only other place this really happens is in Mulan.
So, whether Disney simply decided to make the characters more well rounded or their style has evolved to this point, I think that they've come a long way from where all it took to snag a princess was royal breathing and making sure you didn't have halitosis before kissing her.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)