Thoughts From A Day in the Mouse Trap

As a Southern California native, it feels un-State-riotic and a little embarassing to confess that today was my third (not twelfth or one-hundred-and-seventy-second) trip to Disneyland. Nor did my previous visits quite drag me into the "OMG dinneylan' is the best thing EVARR!" social club-- but today I opened my heart and mind and accepted an invitation to go. So, after spending today in the Mouse Trap, I've come to an eclectic mix of conclusions:

1. Creating experiences is an art form. And Disneyland is to that art form what sky scrapers are to architecture. Disney pulls out all the big guns-- of art AND of technology-- in order to make it happen for its clients. Animatronic EVERYTHING, projections on smoke screens, pristine streets and surreally maintained buildings, makeup and costume, silhouettes and light tricks, every conceivable way of replicating an explosion, and the ingenious engineering of staff members' perfectly-in-character presence (see 2). It's damned impressive, that's what it is.

2. Disneyland has at least half of the characteristics of a cult. (Here I refer to the employer/industry, rather than the exchange between staff and customers.) This isn't a criminal accusation by any means-- if you've ever worked at a summer camp, for example, you understand that the imaginary line between 'cult' and 'culture' is completely meaningless. And cult-ure has valid logistical necessity for large-group management. At any point, Disneyland is coordinating THOUSANDS of 'cast members' in order to maintain the Mouse's microcosm. (Though I'm hardly Princess Popular, about a dozen of my friends and acquaintances have done time at Disney over the years-- and as far as I understand, my cultic references echo popular dressing room humor). Of this list, I'd personally defend numbers one, four, and five, and at least the last three, and add the notion of controlled/coded language which is often so vital in creating culture from the top down.

3. I might be an inductive platonist. This is not a thing; I threw the term together in an attempt to explain my philosophical reaction to Mickey Mice today. See, to entertain the folks waiting to get 'Mickey's autograph', they played a film reel in the lobby of 'his house' which showed all the versions of Mickey-- moving smoothly back and forth from new to old, from original to 3Dish ToonTown and back, with complete irreverence for chronology. And nobody winced. Nobody was bothered because it worked. It was valid. Even though original Mickey probably would not have recognized his modern manifestation, all of the artists were dancing around an essential Mickey-- not by imitating it, but by CREATING it. Who knows how Mickey will manifest by the time I'm taking (or not taking) my own kids to Disneyland... but every new version adds to the compiled picture, the constructed essence of Mickey.

The Latest Manifestation of the Mickey Form

4. If you so much as suggest that ANY attraction at Disneyland is even VAGUELY comparable to Space Mountain in awesomeness, I will punch you in the jaw. Nobutsurious. Why were those other rides even invented? (Ok, I'll give Indiana Jones the credit it's due here too-- if only to have a second-best to keep the supreme best-ness of Space Mountain in perspective.)

 If Disneyland ever goes back to its old pay-by-ride system, I'll be back for Space Mountain like errey Thursday (it proved an excellent day to go-- 15 minutes was my top wait time!). Until then, I am so happy to keep hanging out in the "real world", where only science, economics, history, sociology, psychology, and the government can create strange, fictitious representations of reality for me!

Had your own strange and maybe even slightly existential experiences at Disneyland lately? Do tell!  Comments are open!

~Ely

I'm not a 'Feminist' (But I need Feminism!)

`Isms' are slippery things. Besides the fact they're constantly being formed and re-formed by the cultural contexts in which they live, just about every member of that culture associates with and defines them differently. That's why I'm wary of attaching my name to any `ism'-- especially any one that I've spent as little time exploring and attempting to understand as Feminism. I don't have the audacity-- or the trust-- that would be required to call myself a Feminist.

But Feminism as a historical and contemporary movement is the ground I stand on. It's the air I breathe. It's the reason why I'm on track to graduate with my my Master's degree a few months after my 23rd birthday; it's the reason why I know that I too am created in God's image; it's the reason why I can participate in acts of intellectual generosity such as poetic perfomance and blogging. That's why I'm a little confused to see so many women proudly denouncing Feminism on the Internet. It feels like watching someone slap her mother. In public.

Now, don't get me wrong. A few years ago, I was right there with them. Feminism had been related to me as the battle cry of a bunch of man-hating power-hungry bra-burning megabitches, and it wasn't something I wanted to be associated with either. As a strong daughter of a family full of strong women, I didn't see what everyone was so upset about, either. I knew what Feminism was, and I knew that I didn't need it. But then, during college, I noticed that all was not right in the world of gender relations-- either in my own context or abroad. In one of those beautiful coincidences of timing, I soon read, and then met, a few real-life feminists (female and male). And I realized that I'd allowed a rich, significant, and incredibly NECESSARY global paradigm shift to be charicatured into an irrational bogeywoman in my mind. 

I read the 18th century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft, who wanted girls to learn their worth and capabilities as well as math and critical thinking, and I was thankful that I grew up knowing myself as a whole and complete person. I met a male Feminist classmate who was nauseated to watch the male third of our class take three-fourths of the floor time in discussion, and I realized how normal it still feels to be underrepresented. I thought about how my mother and my grandmother raised my sister and I while my father was in prison, and I feel their quiet strength pulsing in my veins and reminding me that I can handle anything. These are the faces of Feminism.

Of course, they aren't the only faces. Here I must plead ignorance on specifics, but I imagine that Feminists, being human beings, sometimes hold onto resentments which aren't productive or life-giving. Some may be reactionary; some may be more emotional than logical; some may be terrible scholars or writers or persuaders. Some may simply be wrong. But if associating with ______ism means agreeing with everything that every _______ist has ever said or written, well, then I quit Christianity.* But in both cases I've been comforted by the fact that we don't simply get absorbed by every notion that we stand too close to. There's little risk of me slipping into agreement with all Christians even when I count myself among them, and there's even less risk of being completely defined by Feminism simply because I refuse to uproot myself from the soil in which myself and the feminists (and the anti-feminists) are together planted.

So as far as I can tell, no matter how you choose to associate with Feminism-- as a Feminist, as a gender-egalitarian, as an antifeminist-- the movement is already associated with you. You can take the woman out of the movement, but you can't take the movement out of the woman. Or the man. 

~ ~ ~

*I'm not going to lie; I've considered that option. I constantly have to ask myself if I've let it become another 'ism'-- if I'm a Christian or a Christianist.

Today's Our Day, Singles!

It's recently occurred to me that as a third-century church father, St. Valentine was probably celibate. Celibate, as in voluntarily, perpetually single.

That and the lack of evidence that Valentine even cared about other peoples' romance made me wonder how the hell this day got hijacked by our happily paired-off friends. It's really quite properly our day, as far as I can tell. (Not that we won't share-- especially cause we know how it feels to not be shared with!)

As unhealthy and self-pitying as they often are, I understand the complaints about singleness underrepresentation on Valentine's feast day. Even as a very happily single person, each Valentine's for the past several years has been a time marker for me, an 'Oh, I am not looking at this day from the other side of the divide yet. And I might not, ever."

And I don't mean that to be cynical. I just don't believe the modern narrative that singleness is a curse to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. In my work at a retirement community, I've met many amazing, fulfilled life champions who have never been married, and a good handful who met and married their first loves in the retirement community after age 60. And I think that's beautiful. I wouldn't mind it in the slightest.

There's a very vivid happiness in this space of not-needing, of being free to invest in community in so many multi-faceted ways, of living and making decisions exclusively by God's beckonings. As a culture, we don't celebrate that enough. So let's start. The reason this is a day of Couple's cheeze and Single's griping is that we haven't joined the celebration.

Today's our day, single people. We're only as alone as we decide to be. Let's choose community. Let's choose connection. Let's choose love.

Registering to Vote

Though I don't want to bore you with my praises of the magical information network known as the Internet, I really can't help it this time. At 3:30 this afternoon, I wasn't even sure if I was registered to vote. In the last 20 minutes, though, I looked up whether I was registered (I wasn't), registered, and wrote this blog article about it. Now I shall move from slacktivist to activist-- with chutzpa! (And, since I checked the 'always mail my ballot' box, I STILL don't have to leave my house! Hooray!)

I really wish I knew more about party affiliations, though-- the application listed seven options, none of which 'belong' to me, so I registered as unaffiliated. Here's a list that I want to do some research about later:

-American Independent Party
-American Elect Party
-Democratic Party
-Green Party
-Libertarian Party
-Peace & Freedom Party
-Republican Party

Maybe a project for another week. But which do you claim, and what's your reasoning?

~Ely

A Brief Defense of Irreverence

I've sometimes earned the criticism and concern of my fellow Christians for my perceived irreverence-- my preference for the companionship of honest heathens over that of most professing believers, my inability to settle down into one church community, my propensity for asking difficult questions.

When I inevitably respond that I learned these naughty habits from Jesus, I'm often promptly reminded of the obvious fact that I'm not Jesus, that I'm vulnerable to drift and contamination, to walking away.

The last part, in my current mood, makes me giggle. This isn't conceit-- I'm so very aware that my love for Jesus is broken, selfish, and sometimes downright bratty. It's just that the things that alarm me about my walk and the things that alarm others are so rarely even remotely similar. My spiritual 'safety' hasn't made it on my list yet.

I'm not speaking with the pride of someone who imagines herself infallible, but the gleeful desperation of one who's drifted, been contaminated, walked away, more times than I can count, only to find myself re-quipping Brother Peter's timeless question... where else would I go?

My my memory is too sharp and my imagination too small to picture life outside of this divine moment, this eternal 'now' with God. Because now, in the embrace of my Creator, I lay my head on His chest, listen to His heartbeat, and sigh, 'how You love us...'. I stand on His feet as He dances me, a dance of extravagantly messy and dangerously sincere love for all people, of celebrating Home in every space and moment and community of worship, of clear and simple steps set to a beautiful symphony of uncertainty. This is how He dances me, covering over my lack of Grace with the abundance of His.

Is it any wonder that reverence to an irreverent God would look like this?

Writing My Representative

A few weeks ago, when I wrote a blog article on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, I ended by imploring my audience to 'join me' in contacting our congressional representatives to express our disapproval of the bill. This was, quite honestly, a pretty dishonest way to end the article.

I had no idea who my representative was, not to mention how to contact him/her. I've later reflected that it's a total crime that I graduated high school, let alone college, without this information. Shouldn't there have been a civic engagement class (or one-hour lecture, at least) somewhere in my sixteen years of education? But no. I was clueless.

And there may be a lot of structural reasons for my cluelessness, but remaining there even as I asked people to advocate 'with me' was a choice made out of laziness and lack of dedication to this issue. And that kind of hypocrisy can really weigh on a person.

So today, I overcame 21 years of ignorance with a 15-second google search. Don't you love the modern world? You don't know who your congressional representative is, so you type, “Who's my congressional representative?” into a little digital illusion of a box, and voila! A House.Gov zip code search page pops up, hooking up with the webpage of your man (or woman) just as fast as you can think about it.

As a resident of Riverside County, CA, my representative is Ken Calvert. He's a Republican with a giggle-ably outdated picture of himself across the banner of his website. From the mini-snippets I've read so far, I probably wouldn't agree with his stances on a lot of things, but he seems like a decent guy. I'm glad I looked him up.

In the spirit of honesty, though, I'm really not a phone person. I'm not super articulate 'on the fly'. So instead of calling him about the TPP, I wrote him a letter. I tried to talk about the issue just as one person talking to another-- letting all personality show through, from my kindergarten-teacher-looking handwriting and vintage daisy stationary to the vocabulary and conversational pace of my writing.

Just one person who cares talking to another person who cares. This is how I signed it:

From an average ordinary everyday supercitizen,

~Ely

Five Reasons for Conservative Christian America to Calm the Flip Down And Give A Sexual Minority A Hug Today

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that DOMA, a national act that forbade federal recognition of same-sex marragies, is unconstitutional and therefore no longer valid. The Supreme Court also confirmed the validity of an earlier court decision that overturned Proposition 8, a California bill which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. (More at NPR) While neither of these acts specifically legalizes intragender marriages on a national level, many are celebrating this as part of a larger trend that is strongly headed in that direction. Meanwhile, quite a few people are FREAKING OUT.

The logic of the most vocal Christian groups is simple: God designed marriage, and He designed it as a union between a man and a woman, both for obvious practical reasons, and more subtle spiritual reasons. If we affirm anything other than that as a nation, we're stepping out of God's will and into a very, very, bad direction. 

After a few in-depth conversations with concerned citizens, I feel compelled to write out some new thinking/talking points that center around the structure of this argument.

1. A Problem of Premise
   Marriage was created by God. It's a statement that Christians can and should celebrate, contemplate, and push themselves to live out. But beginning a dialogue with someone by asserting conclusions based on a premise that they have not necessarily accepted is fruitless and unwise. It not only fails to bring people closer to God, it offends the dignity that God has given them as thinking, feeling individuals-in-progress. Bartolme de las Casas, 16^th century bishop and incredible philosopher of Christian witness, asserted that the Church has no authority over those who have never willingly walked into her doors, into her family. The testimony of the Bible seems overwhelmingly to agree. That's why I'm proud to live in a place where the Church and government generally recognize and respect their unique jurisdictions.
2. A Problem of Definitional Discrepancies
   While I couldn't possibly accurately encompass the motivations of 4 million homosexual US citizens in a single blog entry, the overwhelming demand of this community is not marriage before God, but marriage before the state-- that is, access to tax benefits, social security standing, citizenship rights for the internationally espoused, and the social dignities we grant to a couple that has made the brave commitment of forging a life together. This, civil marriage, is a beautiful and noble thing whether undertaken by Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or Christians, but it is not the same beautiful and noble thing that two people undertake when they come before God to forge a spiritual union, a triangle with God at the head. The state does not and cannot require or even permit people to participate in such a divine marriage before granting access to civil marriage. This will always, always be the business of the Church, and, perhaps even moreso, the business of the two individuals and God. 
3. A Problem of Cultural Inconsistency
   Civil marriage has always performed the role of affirming the legality of sexual behavior, and many people are nervous about legitimizing acts that the Bible says are not legitimate before God. But the reality is, post-sexual-revolution, homosexual activity is legal-- as is sleeping with someone and then sleeping with their (of-age) offspring  (Leviticus 18:17), marrying someone, divorcing them, and marrying their sibling (Leviticus 18:18), and sleeping with a woman during her menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19). Worried that being part of such a heathen nation will exclude you from God's blessing? Well, these things-- and a lot more-- were all also legal under 1^st century Roman rule, and Jesus still showed up there. The revolution has always been heart-by-heart, not law-by-law.
4. A Problem of Pointing Fingers
   

   
   Christians have too long and too cruelly enjoyed the luxury of indulging in 'majority sins', protected by the lie that certain human sins are worse than others-- that all human brokenness isn't aching evidence of our collective and equalizing disconnect from God. If we loudly preach an ideal of marriage as a God-forged union between man and woman with and before Him while showing the world how easy it is to neglect, adulterate, and break those bonds, the curse falls on us all the more. My message to those valiant picketers: go home and love your spouse.
   
   
5. A Problem of Specifics
   Underlying all of these flaws is the basic one of what the Bible actually says.  The statutes listed are not against homosexual feelings, not against homosexual marriage, but against homosexual sex. Homosexual marriage would contribute both practically and culturally to a stabilization of relationships, contributing to a trend away from gratuitious sexual activity. That's right, gay marriage could and probably would reduce gay sex. 
   
   
   If writing out these flaws and re-thinkings of popular arguments has done anything for me, it's made me realize how silly it is to be this involved in other peoples' personal lives. My purpose was to take a closer look at the assumptions under this standard argument, and, as I feel I've accomplished that, I'm going back to minding my own happy business. Please, feel free to join me! 
   
   
   ~Ely