Gender Work December 28. 2004
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
First you acknowledge that we are free from the bounds of gender, class, nationality... all those things that are so often outside of our free will. But then you seem to exalt these bindings as "diversity" and that we shouldn't actually be free from them, that they should be integrated into who we are.
I guess it just seems to me like the philosophy you've arrived at is so vague that it can say anything - that, in fact, I could use it to justify the Catholic stance on homosexuality.
(just my raw thoughts. sorry if they come off as insensitive, i wanted to get them out as accurately as possible)
I guess it just seems to me like the philosophy you've arrived at is so vague that it can say anything - that, in fact, I could use it to justify the Catholic stance on homosexuality.
(just my raw thoughts. sorry if they come off as insensitive, i wanted to get them out as accurately as possible)
I can see how you would come to that conclusion from my entry. Thank you for the critical look into what I've presented. I did not intend to do with my words what you see in them. I'm not exalting the bindings themselves but the experiences we have in life because of the bindings. If we look critically at these experiences of our bindings as we focus on Christ in faith and Spirit, I believe these bindings will fall away without needing to deny our very selves and our lives in the process. We would lose much if we denied our experiences as such. We can encounter Christ in the most oppresive situations and those experiences can inform not only our faith but the faith of others as we tell our story. The bible is full of this type of diversity, this type of unity of faith with a diveristy of experience.
Secondly, you could use it to justify the Catholic stance on homosexuality or patriachy or classism or etc. but would you? Would the Spirit of Love and the agape found in Christ lead you to oppress people?
Again thanks for your thought!
Secondly, you could use it to justify the Catholic stance on homosexuality or patriachy or classism or etc. but would you? Would the Spirit of Love and the agape found in Christ lead you to oppress people?
Again thanks for your thought!
The thing is, I honestly do not believe the Catholic stance is unhealthy whatsoever. There may be some crappy implementations, but the fundamental stance I find no fault with.
"I believe these bindings will fall away without needing to deny our very selves and our lives in the process."
As always, communication & vocabulary is a very tricky thing. A big portion of this disconnect could be resolved if we were simply in agreement over what exactly falls in the category of "bindings" and what exactly falls in the category of "our selves".
"I believe these bindings will fall away without needing to deny our very selves and our lives in the process."
As always, communication & vocabulary is a very tricky thing. A big portion of this disconnect could be resolved if we were simply in agreement over what exactly falls in the category of "bindings" and what exactly falls in the category of "our selves".
"There may be some crappy implementations, but the fundamental stance I find no fault with."
I may or may not take issue with this statement. So before I do I would feel more comfortable if you would explain how you see and explain the "fundamental stance" and how it could mis-implemented as well as how it should be implemented.
Communication and vocabulary are always tricky and will always fail us. We are always surrounded by mist and darkness when we speak because we are not conveying ideas but merely symbols for close approximations of those ideas. So, as far as "what are our bindings?" and "what are our selves?" entail is in and of itself a dissertation (if not a really lengthy essay). But I would say (without explaining myself in the aformentioned manner) that all of our gender social roles are bindings of power and of sexual fiction as well as all of our societal structures of hierarchy are bindings. Basically anything and everything that exudes "power over" (even if that is not its intent) instead of "power with." How we define our selves is yet another sticky matter. I would venture to say most of our theological bemusings tend to deal greatly with this question and its affects on creation. I mean we are talking about it right now and this discussion started out about the spiritual role of gender in faith.
Thanks for your input!
I may or may not take issue with this statement. So before I do I would feel more comfortable if you would explain how you see and explain the "fundamental stance" and how it could mis-implemented as well as how it should be implemented.
Communication and vocabulary are always tricky and will always fail us. We are always surrounded by mist and darkness when we speak because we are not conveying ideas but merely symbols for close approximations of those ideas. So, as far as "what are our bindings?" and "what are our selves?" entail is in and of itself a dissertation (if not a really lengthy essay). But I would say (without explaining myself in the aformentioned manner) that all of our gender social roles are bindings of power and of sexual fiction as well as all of our societal structures of hierarchy are bindings. Basically anything and everything that exudes "power over" (even if that is not its intent) instead of "power with." How we define our selves is yet another sticky matter. I would venture to say most of our theological bemusings tend to deal greatly with this question and its affects on creation. I mean we are talking about it right now and this discussion started out about the spiritual role of gender in faith.
Thanks for your input!
The simplest way I've always understood it to be, is, that homosexuality is a physical handicap. It's not a judgement on a person's worth or value, because of course all are equal in the eyes of the Lord. But it's an issue of being physically incomplete.
It's like somebody who was born a kleptomaniac, or asthmatic. The restrictions they must live with in their life may be considered oppressive to somebody who doesn't see the bigger picture. How dare we tell the klepto that he can't just take whatever he pleases? It's in his nature!
Forgive me for the terribly short definition. Let me know where I can elaborate.
It's like somebody who was born a kleptomaniac, or asthmatic. The restrictions they must live with in their life may be considered oppressive to somebody who doesn't see the bigger picture. How dare we tell the klepto that he can't just take whatever he pleases? It's in his nature!
Forgive me for the terribly short definition. Let me know where I can elaborate.
Could you elaborate? You equate homosexuality with a physical handicap, then compare it to kleptomania, which is a mental malady. You also mentioned astma. So is it a physical handicap or a mental one in your line of reasoning?
I also think you are comparing to very dissimilar things, unless you rely on homosexuality being a disease for your argument. Kleptomania is a mental diseases, and can be treated medically. Asthma is a physical disease, which, again, can be treated medically. Homosexuality is not something that can just be treated, whether to be cured or for an individual to "suffer less from it."
I'll acknowledge there are some in the psychology field that have attempted to "reform" homosexuals into heterosexuals, however, I think this is a misguided attempt, and the majority of that field would agree with my thoughts. *note, not saying I'm an expert, but I do intend to reference experts in that thought*
I also think you are comparing to very dissimilar things, unless you rely on homosexuality being a disease for your argument. Kleptomania is a mental diseases, and can be treated medically. Asthma is a physical disease, which, again, can be treated medically. Homosexuality is not something that can just be treated, whether to be cured or for an individual to "suffer less from it."
I'll acknowledge there are some in the psychology field that have attempted to "reform" homosexuals into heterosexuals, however, I think this is a misguided attempt, and the majority of that field would agree with my thoughts. *note, not saying I'm an expert, but I do intend to reference experts in that thought*
I have responded to the notion of handicap/disability being somehow deficient or imperfect in the following entry:
http://lestblood.imagodirt.net/archives/78-Conversations-with-the-Disabled-God.html
To respond more directly to the question of homosexuality (I for one do not see it as a disability that needs to be "healed" or "restrained" and I think david m pointed out some of the critical flaws in your argument/analogy so I won't go into that); there are basically 5 analogies for moral positions on homosexuality. You seem to fall somewhere between 2 and 3. These analogies come from the book Heterosexism: an Ethical Challenge by Patricia Jung and Ralph Smith.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=lestbloodbesh-20&path=tg/stores/detail/-/books/0791416968/glance/
1. Immorality
Theological Axiom: A paradigmatic sign of the brokenness of the world.
The anthropological Axiom: Evil
Personal Culpability: Lots
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are evil; sexual reorientation is required
Derivative Moral Rules: No Blessings of unions; no ordaining of any gay person
2. Alchoholism
Theological Axiom: A greater sign of the brokenness of the world
The anthropological Axiom: Disease
Personal Culpability: Little
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are more evil than lifelong and total abstinence
Derivative Moral Rules: No blessing of unions; ordain only closeted gay people committed to lifelong and total sexual abstinence
3. Blindness
Theological Axiom: A lesser sing of the brokenness of the world
The anthropological Axiom: Defect
Personal Culpability: None
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are less evil than lifelong and total abstinence
Derivative Moral Rules: May or may not bless unions; may or may not ordain chaste, closeted gay people
4. Color Blindness
Theological Axiom: Not quite the fullness of God's original blessing
The anthropological Axiom: Imperfection
Personal Culpability: None
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions and lifelong and total abstinence both fall short
Derivative Moral Rules: Bless unions privately; ordain chaste, closted gay people
5. Left-handedness
Theological Axiom: Part of God's original blessing
The anthropological Axiom: Variation
Personal Culpability: None and irrelevant
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving and faithful homosexual unions are good
Derivative Moral Rules: Publicly bless unions; ordain chaste, uncloseted gay people
These analogies are the result of a large study conducted by the authors in various situations. The reveal (in the book) that there is a sexual ethic in our society that is based on what has been constructed as "ideal" or a normalized ethic (see how this is bad theology in the above response to disability) Heterosexism is revealed to be a system of prejudice that both grows out of and supports this ethic. It produces various forms of discrimination, particularly those against gay and lesbian people, that cannot be justified in the public square (or in a critical reflection within theology). After reviewing the source of heterosexim in society, theology, and the biblical witness, the authors suggest that offering a plurifom rather than a uniform sexual ethic will result in a more responsible and viable dialogu on the theical questions that emerge when we move beyond heterosexim.
I think it would be a good read for you Justin. (maybe selfishly because...) I would love to hear your reflections on the book as well as your critical response to it.
http://lestblood.imagodirt.net/archives/78-Conversations-with-the-Disabled-God.html
To respond more directly to the question of homosexuality (I for one do not see it as a disability that needs to be "healed" or "restrained" and I think david m pointed out some of the critical flaws in your argument/analogy so I won't go into that); there are basically 5 analogies for moral positions on homosexuality. You seem to fall somewhere between 2 and 3. These analogies come from the book Heterosexism: an Ethical Challenge by Patricia Jung and Ralph Smith.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=lestbloodbesh-20&path=tg/stores/detail/-/books/0791416968/glance/
1. Immorality
Theological Axiom: A paradigmatic sign of the brokenness of the world.
The anthropological Axiom: Evil
Personal Culpability: Lots
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are evil; sexual reorientation is required
Derivative Moral Rules: No Blessings of unions; no ordaining of any gay person
2. Alchoholism
Theological Axiom: A greater sign of the brokenness of the world
The anthropological Axiom: Disease
Personal Culpability: Little
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are more evil than lifelong and total abstinence
Derivative Moral Rules: No blessing of unions; ordain only closeted gay people committed to lifelong and total sexual abstinence
3. Blindness
Theological Axiom: A lesser sing of the brokenness of the world
The anthropological Axiom: Defect
Personal Culpability: None
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions are less evil than lifelong and total abstinence
Derivative Moral Rules: May or may not bless unions; may or may not ordain chaste, closeted gay people
4. Color Blindness
Theological Axiom: Not quite the fullness of God's original blessing
The anthropological Axiom: Imperfection
Personal Culpability: None
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving, and faithful homosexual unions and lifelong and total abstinence both fall short
Derivative Moral Rules: Bless unions privately; ordain chaste, closted gay people
5. Left-handedness
Theological Axiom: Part of God's original blessing
The anthropological Axiom: Variation
Personal Culpability: None and irrelevant
Primary Moral Judgment: Just, loving and faithful homosexual unions are good
Derivative Moral Rules: Publicly bless unions; ordain chaste, uncloseted gay people
These analogies are the result of a large study conducted by the authors in various situations. The reveal (in the book) that there is a sexual ethic in our society that is based on what has been constructed as "ideal" or a normalized ethic (see how this is bad theology in the above response to disability) Heterosexism is revealed to be a system of prejudice that both grows out of and supports this ethic. It produces various forms of discrimination, particularly those against gay and lesbian people, that cannot be justified in the public square (or in a critical reflection within theology). After reviewing the source of heterosexim in society, theology, and the biblical witness, the authors suggest that offering a plurifom rather than a uniform sexual ethic will result in a more responsible and viable dialogu on the theical questions that emerge when we move beyond heterosexim.
I think it would be a good read for you Justin. (maybe selfishly because...) I would love to hear your reflections on the book as well as your critical response to it.
Yeah, I realized after I posted that "mental handicap" would have been more accurate. As you know, there is the nature versus nurture discussion. I think there are valid cases in both camps, that both types do occur.
The "nature" cases would be considered a disease or a birth defect. Trying to reform this is a losing battle, trying to swim upstream against genetics itself. But I don't think that means you let it run your life. Rather, you take precautions, just as somebody with high cholesterol must watch their cholesterol intake. The basis of this reasoning is in the understanding of this as a mental ailment.
The "nurture" cases do in fact allow for reform. There is a lot of rhetoric to wade through, amidst all the statistcal studies of psychological behaviourism. The most complicated situations, though, are those with a bit of both types.
The "nature" cases would be considered a disease or a birth defect. Trying to reform this is a losing battle, trying to swim upstream against genetics itself. But I don't think that means you let it run your life. Rather, you take precautions, just as somebody with high cholesterol must watch their cholesterol intake. The basis of this reasoning is in the understanding of this as a mental ailment.
The "nurture" cases do in fact allow for reform. There is a lot of rhetoric to wade through, amidst all the statistcal studies of psychological behaviourism. The most complicated situations, though, are those with a bit of both types.
Thank you for elaborating. I personally disagree with the assessment, but I'm tuckered out on arguing about this so I'll let it stand that we disagree.
We are not free from gender, class and nationality. This is our identity and we can't be set free from these boudaries.
If we recognize the "boundaries," as you obviously do, we can see that they are social constructed. They are a fiction created by our civilization. Meaning that they can be crossed and I think should be broken. Moreover, it is in Christ that all these boundaries become meaningless. They fall away as new roles of love and grace are given to us for fulfilling in the world. It is our struggle to bring about justice and justice only comes when we remove all divisions while maintaining our diversity. Modern people are too afraid of paradoxes.
http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2005/12/this-is-what-it-means-to-be-catholic.html
Here's my kinda boundary-crossing diversity.
Here's my kinda boundary-crossing diversity.

