#but at the same time…the construction of this archetype as radical as well as trusted means that they just come off as The Coolest

[daisyachain]

Male authors cannot and will never stop writing the character archetype of The Attractive Charismatic Politically Radical Man is in Love With Me [cough] I Mean My Protagonist But I [cough] I Mean He Doesn’t Like Him Back Because He’s Not Gay. Why Would He Be Gay. Does He Look Gay. Does This Seem Gay to You.

[classicalafros67]

Let's talk about Gender

 I feel that this conversation always brings up a can of worms, and that people are immediately ready with prime typing fingers to respond, "lol there are only to genders, male and female," or something along the lines of, "if you have a penis ur a dude lol, no changing biology, sorry." Before I go into that in depth, I believe that, as a really great professor recently told me, I should go into the academic theory of it all. As I mentioned in my last post, I want this conversation to be constructive, so in order for me to even begin thinking of starting this conversation anywhere, I will first tackle the theory of socialization, then identity, then gender. (And hope I can explain it in a way that is clear.) To be completely honest though, this will be a long one folks, and one which I cannot shorten. It is imperative that we understand this before we dive into discussion, however, I invite you to scroll through the discussion (starting in the fourth paragraph) and refer back to the few paragraphs before explaining the theory if you get confused about anything.

First, let’s talk about socialization. A quick definition of socialization is the process of learning to behave in a way that is acceptable in a society. It is very interesting how socialization happens as we utilize symbols. (symbols will used in a way to portray things that form cultures such as the media, consumer products, linguistics, vernacular, art, and even behavior) Take the example of media – the way people tell the news, or who’s the obvious target for that Axe body spray or Dove deodorant. Consider how these symbols that you grew up with may have affected your world view. Next, think of the ways these symbols are distributed and how. These symbols are distributed through what we call vehicles of influences. We break this up into three parts: intimacy, repetition, and reach. Intimacy being the exposure of symbols through people we know or trust. (e.g friends of family) Repetition being the multitude of times that you are exposed to a symbol. (e.g. if you’ve had a discussion on gender multiple times, as I’ve had, and you’re reading this and probably hearing the same things more than once about gender once we, finally, get into it) Then reach being the weight and geography of people being exposed to a symbol all at once. (e.g. Hasan Piker’s, a host and producer on The Young Turks, reach to expose or repeat symbols towards others is WAY wider than my blog which I’ll assume will only reach a couple people)

After learning this, we are left to ask how socialization is negotiated. According to scholar and professor Nancy Armstrong, “Culture is a struggle among its various factions to control its signs and symbols.” How do we control the symbols to form the desired culture? Like with the vehicles of influence, there are three ways: maintaining (the status quo or current/accepted condition), transforming (deviating from the status quo), or repairing (sactioning the transformation).

Phew! That’s a lot of theory! And we’re not done, but I promise there’s not a lot of theory left. (we’ll get cracking on TRANSFORMING GENDER soon! Radical!!) The last piece is the theory of identity and how that puzzle piece fits into socialization. (although, there’s a pretty obvious hint if you thought about your world view development!) Identity is how you perceive yourself. It is also a performance of expectations of behaviors based upon the category we put ourselves in while interacting with others. The theory of identity breaks itself into four largely entangling parts: self-concept (our expectations of a category or a performance), self-esteem (how well does one/I fit into this category/schema?), expectations (self definitive), and performance.

Now onto gender! I first learned about what gender meant sociologically. In Jeanne H.Ballantine’s third edition of, Our Social World, gender is a, “socially constructed meaning associated with being male or female… and how individuals construct their identity in terms of gender within these constraints” (246). Gender is mostly based off of sex and stereotypes of what is masculine and feminine.  Definitions of masculinity and femininity are different in the United States than they are in Spain or Indonesia, and so on. One could even believe that gender is made up accordingly to a society; hence social construct. (It is also important to note that gender and sex, while entangled, are not the same thing.) However, when it comes to the psychological definition in John W. Santrock’s, Adolescence, “Gender refers to the characteristics of people as males and females” (168). And when we consider gender and adolescence together, there’s a group of other things to consider. As one can see, there is not a concrete definition of gender, especially when you consider beyond the biological and stereotypically. I vehemently believe that there will never be a concrete definition for gender when you consider identifications beyond the binary of male or female. I also believe that this scares people because for so long, the symbols of our culture have maintained the bifurcation of male or female with no negotiation of the spectrum of this. Even when one considers the biological makeup of a person, their primary and secondary sex characteristics, their sex chromosomes, (XY, XYX, XXX, and more), there is not a true binary for that either. Another example of this would be someone who is intersex. (Intersex being when one has a reproductive or sexual anatomy/ies that do not seem to fit the typical binary definitions of female or male) So with all this complexity in mind, why do we look at gender and sex as a binary? Why do we sanction a person’s gender identity or even gender expression when it doesn’t fit our concepts or expectations? Actually, it is for that exact reason that we sanction it. We have been socialized (Western culture) to see gender and sex as a binary. (e.g. these are girl toys, these are men’s jeans, that soap is for guys) Think of my Axe body spray and Dove soap examples. To which genders are the products targeting? (Why is there a section in the Walmart dedicated to Men’s Dove Soap?) The transformation of this binary is seen as a threat not only to gender identity, but to expression and behaviors.

When it comes to gender roles, however, the definition is a little more concrete. According to Santrock, “gender role is a set expectation that prescribes how females and males should think, act, and feel” (168). When I think of a cisgender woman (cisgender meaning someone who comfortably identifies as the sex and gender they were assigned at birth), I think of long hair, pink skirt, painted nails and beautiful eyeliner. When I think of a cisgender man, I think of muscles, beard, suit and tie. These are the social expectations that have been placed in my head as to what man or woman should look and act like. Still, that expectation is never the full reality. These expectations of masculinity or femininity are best portrayed in a spectrum versus a binary.

 Take me for example. I identify as a cisgender male. I stated my self-conceptions of what a cisgender male should look like, and we have been socialized to know what a masculine man should act like. In fact, the archetype of masculinity would be a strong, in-control man whom is out of touch emotionally. (Lee, Shaw 119) I remember once in a psychology class, when we were asked to name some typical characteristics of being male we could identify with, I could barely name any. I was able to do a better job at naming some typical characteristics of a female. I believe that this is because I grew up around cisgender women, who conformed to scripts of femininity, as a kid. My father raised me with my mom, but I mostly grew up around the women in our family, and I looked up to my mom more than my dad because she was around me the most. Even when I moved in with my dad, the majority in that house were women as well. I was encouraged to like art, nature, and music, and my father did not like that so much because those subjects were not seen as manly. In my mind, especially as I grew up, my father had a ridiculous personality; bottling up emotions, having explosive fits of rage, being irrational, never truly thinking deeply about things and so on. With that, I imitated my mom, who was the exact opposite from my dad. It wasn’t until high school, after I came out to my father as gay, that I tried to imitate his masculinity in order to gain his praise again. I got into sports, tried to anyway, and joined the speech team and so on. The speech team is an example of me demonstrating my report talk which in Deborah Tannen’s definition is the, “talk that gives information” (179). Public speaking is an example of this, and according to her, males are typically good at this. I did not think too deeply into this when I was 14, but I think I somehow knew that public speaking was typically seen as a “boy thing” rather than a “girl thing.” But of course, I quit speech my junior year of high school because I was way better at music than I was at public speaking. Can you see ways that my family, mainly my father, maintained the status quo of masculinity, in this case to the point of toxicity, and attempted to repair my feminine characteristics especially when I came out?  Despite my many feminine characteristics, I do believe that I also have some masculine traits due to how I survived my social environment. (performance according to interactions) I was bullied a lot through elementary and middle school for many reasons; I was short, I was skinny, I was black, and I was suspected to be gay even at that time. My parents raised me to believe that when someone bullies you, you stand up to them. This belief caused me to become very aggressive as a child. I got into a lot of fights with many of my bullies. One fight I got into ended with me gaining some permanent scars on my face. Additionally, as a young adult, I weightlift now along with running, and I’m surprisingly strong when it comes to that. I become very aggressive and forceful when I’m in the gym.

 I could probably list off a hundred more things that I do that can be seen as both masculine and feminine, but why does any of this matter? Why is so important that I stay healthy? Why does it MATTER how aggressive I am or how many fights I’ve been in? I share my story without taking care to how I talk about it to show you that I am also victim to this socialization. I was victim to thinking that I needed to fit perfectly into the binary of a masculine cisgender male. However, my love for art and music complicated this, my love for makeup complicated this, my open expressiveness complicated this, and my queerness complicated this. At every step of these complications, someone would attempt or succeed in sanctioning this whether it be myself and my low self-esteem (or my “despite my feminine characteristics” quip), the bullying, the suggestions to play football instead of sing in that musical, or the disgusted shouts from grandma if I walked downstairs with eyeshadow on. With constrictive symbols and the refusal to extend or accept the potential symbols into other categories, we effectively repair them, sanction them, and punish those who dare to try to transform these symbols. It is evident that these repairs and even the maintenance itself causes harm. The socialization of gender, sex and expression as a binary in itself isn’t the problem. It is the refusal to accept these categories are more complex than a binary. It is the repairs that we place upon the people who do not fit the binary of these categories.

We refuse to listen to each other, empathize with one another, and effectively continue to discover new, more intellectual and complex ways to see a sign or a symbol. We argue with each other in guise of discourse learning nothing from each other —for the goal is to be right, not to learn. This effectively lets these repairs upon transformation persist especially when it comes the topic of gender and gender expression. And so the cycle of ignorance continues. I know that I did not cover everything,(I’m think that I might have to break this into parts) so please leave some answers to my questions, advance this conversation here and abroad, and be the transformation not the repair.

Sources:

Santrock, J. (2010). Adolescence (13th ed.)

Ballantine J; Roberts, K. (2014). Our Social World (3rd ed.)

Lee J; Shaw S. (2015). Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (5th ed.)

[delwray-blog]

JUDAISM IS BABYLON THE GREAT

JUDAISM IS BABYLON THE GREAT

By Rev. Ted Pike 15 Feb 2012

Judaism Is Babylon the Great, not the Roman Catholic Church System.

For nearly 2,000 years the best minds of Christianity pondered the true identity of the mysterious scarlet woman of wickedness in Revelation 17 and 18. They didn't discover it for a simple reason: it seemed that the Papacy, resplendent in wealth and power, and guilty for the blood of many Christians, perfectly satisfied Revelation's description of the great Harlot.

As such, it seemed quite unnecessary and even mean-spirited to consider that Jews, and recently the state of Israel, might also be a logical candidate. Particularly with the rise of pro-Zionist evangelicalism the Jews were considered too favored as the "apple of God's eye" to either conceive of or perform great evil.

For nearly 2,000 years supposedly Bible-believing Christians could not come to the obvious conclusion that Judaism is Babylon the Great.

With the destruction of Babylon the Great in Revelation chapter 18 come the end of Zionism and soon the end of Anti-Christ, as he is thrown into the lake of fire along with his false prophet.

The last four chapters of Revelation detail an amazing fact: All who would have trusted Jesus to the moment of death will not only be lifted into the skies to meet Him at His coming to judge the earth but souls already in heaven, coming with Him, shall be united with their reconstituted bodies. Both the dead and the living in Christ will come “with Jesus” as He terribly judges and purges the earth in preparation for His 1,000-year rule.

Revelation is clear that Christ sets up thrones upon earth, and His faithful also rule “with a rod of iron” over the nations, enforcing peace and righteousness. Satan and the wicked are allowed one last moment of rebellion after the 1,000 years are over. After that, they are destroyed and the kingly and priestly status of the saints continues within the New Jerusalem. This is a divinely constructed city only for God’s saints, 1,500 miles square. It is situated on a new earth surrounded by new heavens.

"Mother of Harlots" – In the Old Testament and New

One of the most remarkable blindness’s that has ever obscured the vision of the church concerns the true identity of Babylon the Great, the great system of world control described in Revelation 17. The Old Testament clearly says in hundreds of passages that apostate Israel is the archetypical spiritual whore, the "mother" of spiritual whoredom. Yet this testimony remains hidden from the church.

The Great City

What has happened to that rejected unfaithful wife today?

Revelation 17 confronts us with the specter of a city “which reigns over the kings of the earth.” It has physical power—more wealth and importance than any other city—but also a spiritual power, embodying the full potentiality of human degeneracy. “What city is like this great city?” the merchants of the earth will wail. This city is so commercially important that when she falls, world trade also comes crashing down. The title “the great city” is exclusive. There will doubtless be other powerful cities in the end time but John witnesses “the great city,” an unequaled center of trade, political power, culture and human bondage.

And to whom does that term refer? In Revelation, “the great city” (hey polis megaley in Greek) is used to clearly refer to Jerusalem, capital of the Jewish people! When the two witnesses are killed, their dead bodies lie in the streets of “the great city (hey polis megaley) "Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified” Revelation 11:8. This unmistakably implies that powerful, corrupt Babylon and the great city “Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified,” are the same city… Jerusalem.

The apostle Peter, bishop of Jerusalem, also calls Jerusalem “ Babylon.” He sends greetings from the church in Jerusalem saying, “She who is in Babylon…sends you greetings” 1 Peter 5:13. Peter never visited Babylon. He is clearly identifying the moral cesspool of antiquity, Babylon, with the city where Christ was killed.

There are other reasons to believe “Babylon the Great” means the Jewish city. When she is destroyed, Revelation describes the fall of this city as different from that of “Gentile” (ethnos) cities. “And the great city was divided into three parts and the cities of the nations (Gentiles) fell…” Rev. 16:19 a city which is not Gentile must, of course, be Jewish.

Also, Rev. 18:24 says that the great city is guilty of having shed the blood of the Hebrew prophets and the righteous from the beginning of history. Jesus said the same concerning the rulers of Jerusalem, the Pharisees: "that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar" Matt. 23:35.

Yet even from earliest post-apostolic times, Christians have misread Revelation’s prophecy. They thought Babylon the Great meant Rome, which has traditionally been described as sitting on seven hills. Yet the city of Rome encompasses many more than seven hills. This is not true of Jerusalem. Ernest L. Martin, PhD. points out:

The City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be a 'City of Seven Hills.' This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an 8th century A.D. Midrashic [Talmudic] narrative (Section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that, "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills." ("The Seven Hills of Jerusalem” http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p000201.htm)

Armenian Christians, living for centuries in Palestine, taught their schoolchildren that the seven hills are: Mt. of Olives, Mt. Scopus, Mt. Zion, Mt. Moriah (the Temple Mount), Golgotha, Hill of Moses, and Mt. Herzl.

Scripture also describes only one city as the center of world rule in the last days, and that is Jerusalem. Paul states clearly that the anti-Christ will declare his one-world authority from the temple at Jerusalem, where he proclaims he is God. 2 Thess. 2:4. When the two witnesses resist him, they do not battle a papal anti-Christ but “the wicked profane prince of Israel” in Jerusalem. Ezek. 21:25. These Scriptures point to Jerusalem as the epicenter of one-world rebellion against God; Jerusalem and Babylon are one!

Modern Judaism is Babylonian

There is more depth to the metaphor. Judaism literally is Babylonian, more than nearly any other religion or culture. Most of its religious laws and traditions, including the Babylonian Talmud and Zohar (Kabbalah), come from nearly 1,600 years Jews spent on the fertile plains of Shinar. Few religions have a deeper tradition of the occult. Revelation describes Babylon the Great deceiving the world through her “sorceries” and the Jewish encyclopedias tell us it was Judaism which carried Babylon’s black arts, demonology, and astrology to the West.

This is as true today as ever. Jewish supremacism today is not only erecting a political, financial, commercial world empire but spewing filth on the nations through their movie and TV media. (See Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish) They spearhead freedom-destroying, pro-homosexual hate crimes laws worldwide and abet all forms of left-wing and anti-Christ radicalism through their “civil liberties” fronts such as ADL, ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And just as “Babylon the Great” will deceive the world, so Jewish leaders today present a whitewashed facade to Christians and the world – an illusion of goodness that has never been more convincing or scrupulously maintained. The Jewish lobby deceived Christians into unquestioning support of Israel’s ambitions and atrocities in the Mideast; this is awesome evidence of the manipulative influence Jewry will enjoy as we draw even closer to the end. When Christ warned that the delusions of the end time would be so irresistible that “even the very elect” could be deceived, He was speaking of our day!

In our day we witness the continuing and monstrous complications of that great divorce of Christ from his chosen bride millennia ago. We are not simply approaching the foothills of anti-Christ. We are in them. Through intrigue and deception, the control and commercialism of “Babylon the Great” have come to surround us. Yet we have not perceived it. We have, in fact, assisted it.

Babylon is now.

How should Christians respond to the fact that Israel and Babylon are one? Jesus tells us the answer. "Come out of her, my people, that you may not participate in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues, for her sins have piled up as high as heaven…" Rev. 18:4-5

[insidethemarble]

Babylon 5? Where’s Babylon 1?

There’s a strange story in Genesis, chapter 11, that describes a unified effort by man, after the flood, to build a towering civilization which would exalt the reputation of its builders [verse 4]. God apparently takes interest in the endeavor, referred to as “Babel”. He mysteriously thwarts the construction of this tower by “confusing their language.” This is where humanity stopped speaking ‘english’. :P (just kidding, I don’t know what language they spoke, but we don’t speak it now!) Without any context, or background in Old Testament studies, this passage can be confusing. But let’s take a few steps back to see this theme in the “big picture”, where this tower of Babel represents the endemic problem of human evil and becomes the first instance in an ageless pattern: Humans build an impressive and blasphemous empire, always marked by elitism, injustice, vanity, and selfish ambition, but God, faithfully good and just, orchestrates its downfall. Over and over, the story is the same. It happened Egypt. God wrecked them with signs and wonders while freeing his enslaved people. It happened to Babylon (#2 as it were). God took them out with Persia, restoring Israel’s freedom to live in their land. It happened to Rome. Turns out the Eternal City wasn’t so eternal after all...though it is a nice vacation spot.  It’s the same every time. Since Jehovah is a good god, He refuses to let human wickedness win out in the end. It’s in His name! [Exodus 34:6-7]   This promise of God to ultimately triumph over human wickedness is fundamental to how the Jews understood their scriptures and prophecies during exile in (you guessed it) Ancient Babylon and thereafter. The same archetypal theme was encouraging to the First Century Church during intense persecution by Imperial Rome, allowing them to embrace their radical and rebellious faith in Christ by trusting God for an ultimately good and worthwhile outcome.  [side note: the book of Revelation uses the term “Babylon” to represent the Roman Empire. Far from being a magic-eight ball about the future, it’s ultimate message is timeless; human pride loses, God wins every time.] As we’re facing a culture that becomes increasingly intolerant of truth-based values (ironic, right?), let’s not be surprised by how “dark” the world appears. Sin is no news flash to God. Babylon has worn a thousand faces, with a thousand names, in a thousand places. Jesus, faithful and true, has already conquered it all on the Cross. His plan for wiping out corruption on the earth is already well under way, and in the end our song will be “Fallen, fallen is Babylon! The smoke from her goes up and up. Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.” [Revelation 18 & 19] So hang tight! Stay faithful to Christ, hold true to the faith, and keep loving like it’s the only thing that matters. No matter how many “Babylons” come and go, God’s victory is a sure thing, and I sure don’t want to be on the wrong side of the battle lines when the pattern repeats itself in our generation.