78uuu lumière des étoiles

Dusty:Starlight:Culture



Smash the State...and stuff.
2004-02-01   4:36 p.m.

I really hate it when some entity, be it a federal government, local government, or television network, acts as uber-parent to all of us naughty children-citizens. I'm thinking about this now because "morality" and shifting perceptions of it has been somewhat of a theme over the last few days for me, not exactly in action, but in discussion.

Take, for example, the discussion I had with my WS class on Friday. I'm having them read excerpts from Merlin Stone's When God Was A Woman. Stone acknowledges the fact that ancient matriarchal and matrilineal societies, which we now know DID exist (there has been much disagreement over whether they were "real" or "myth" - indeed, how would it ever be possible for women to be in charge?) in Caanan, Sumer, and other Near/Middle Eastern societies are often charged with "immorality" because of what their texts refer to as sacred sexual customs. These were societies in which sex was not something taboo, was not associated strictly with one's marriage partner, and was not even something one just "did" for pleasure. Rather, it was a form of praying, involved in rituals celebrating, asking of, and thanking the gods and goddesses in whom the people believed.

Enter invading Hebrew tribes, with the Levite laws which eventually would form our Western Judeo-Christian ethics, and temple priestesses become "temple prostitutes". Their behavior is declared "immoral" and made illegal, punishable by stoning and burning to death.

The Hebrew texts, which we get much of our "history" from, record events in just that way: they came in, found a whole bunch of loose women hanging around temples built to false idols and graven images, and they "made them moral again", never mind by torturing them and killing their children.

Handy for the invading Hebrews is the fact that these holy temple priestesses owned most of the land and wealth. Conquering them, just in the interest of ensuring proper moral standards, mind you, came with the added bonus of all property and assets. But surely, as any good ol' text will tell you, the Hebrews were only in it for the morality.

Paternity was another issue for the Hebrews - since these matriarchies were also matrilineal, tracing descent through a maternal line (meaning it really wasn't important who a child's father was, since the child took a mother's name), it would be hard to tell which child born after the invasion was a Hebrew child. Oh, the immorality of that situation, many a Hebrew text reads; it simply cannot be so. Where were people's standards of upstanding, decent conduct, for goodness' sake?

My students were confused. One raised his hand and said "I get the sex thing. But what does paternity have to do with morals?" Slowly, we wondered if "moral" was being strictly associated with "Hebrew", in this context. Anything non-Hebrew, then, would be viewed as immoral. But wait, isn't that called ethnocentrism?

Yep, it is. But we forget that all the time. Whatever gov't is in charge starts to act like this kind of super parent, telling us what is and what isn't immoral.

Bono, I found out, wanted to perform at the superbowl half-time show tonight. But the network told him his choice of material, being political, I suppose, "wasn't appropriate". Well, I find Nelly and all of his "I'm a gangsta, git me my bitches n' hoes" misogynist behavior inappropriate, yet he performed last year.

However, CBS gets to decide what moral is FOR us. Good thing they're there to teach us right from wrong.

Right: Exploitation and systematic devaluation of women.

Wrong: Politically charged, critically thought out anti-violence song.

Right: Dozens of expensive commercials sponsored by beer and tobacco companies, and the Bush administration.

Wrong: A commercial sponsored by a grass-roots organization that presents an opinion against our presidency.

Now, is the idea that people can't or don't want to think for themselves a new thing, or has that always been exploited by those in power? Why is CBS not even considering the fact that the leakage of that ad controversy might be bad press? Are more people insulted that networks like CBS and FOX, who swear to be presenting "fair and balanced" perspectives, have even stronger political ties and agendas than we even realized, or is that just me?

I'm outraged, and I was in shock when I heard about the Bono story in my car, especially considering the fact that "appropriateness" was brought into the discussion. "Who the f*** are you to decide what's appropriate for me?" I said to the radio, as the toll-booth worker looked at me strangely. And more importantly, how come it is fine to be sexually explicit with shows, but not to be intellectually explicit? Bring on the boobs, burn the independent thoughts.

I don't particularly have a problem with sexually explicit material. I do have a huge problem with overt hypocrisy that pretends to be ignorant of its own reality. "What," I feel like writing to the network, "do you think I'm stupid?" Oh wait, I already did that.

The other day, someone told me I "worry too much" about "these things", and that "there's nothing I can do anyway, so why don't I just be happy?" I shuddered inside, because the advice reminded me of all the Orwell, Atwood, and Huxley that I read - and reminded me again why it's so important to teach people to think for themselves.

God I hope I never get that vapid. I refuse to be a droid or a sheep. And anyone who doesn't like it, well, they can just go listen to Nelly.

I'm off to Thomas' house for an anti-anti party. I think they're watching the superbowl. This could get interesting.

xoxox,