Delicious Meat

Two different threads of popular consciousness drifted across my feedreader this last week.

Meme number one was the lingering phenomenon of the neofeminist Slut Walk.  These events are a response to a particularly stupid and ignorant comment made a while back by a law enforcement officer in a rape trial, who suggested that a victim of a sex crime shouldn't have dressed provocatively.   Typically, the marches involve young women who are standing up against that completely unacceptable statement by affirming that women have the right to dress as hott and sexyyyy as they want.   Many of the march participants wear intentionally sexualized clothing, showing that they are empowered to do what they wish with their own sexuality.  They're also trying to make the point: Wearing clothes that are designed to draw sexual attention...or even being sexually forward...does not constitute permission to assault or violate.

And they are right.  Nothing excuses sexual assault.  Ever.  Period.

And here's meme number two.  Today there was another droplet from the endlessly spewing firehose of pop culture irrelevance circulating the interwebs.   In a pitching-the-movie infotainment industry interview with Chia LaBeef, star of the latest round of Michael Bay summer blockbuster Transformer loudness, he shared that one of the reasons that co-star Megan Fox may have bailed from the series is that she'd grown tired of being used as flagrant eye-candy to draw in adolescent or perennially-adolescent males.   To quote:

This is a girl who was taken from complete obscurity and placed in a sex-driven role in front of the whole world and told she was the sexiest woman in America.  And she had a hard time accepting it.  When Mike would ask her to do specific things, there was no time for fluffy talk.  We're on the run.  And the one thing Mike lacks is tact.  There's no time for 'I would like you to just arch your back 70 degrees.'

The "article" goes on to dish over the actress selected as the replacement lump of womanflesh, calling her...apparently as a compliment...a "sexy, delicious piece of meat."

These two things are related.  

The problem I have with the SlutWalks is not with the point they're making about sexual assault.  It's that the new and sexualized version of feminism feels like it has uncritically embraced the mass-marketization of women's sexuality.   The point they're making is fine.  But the reason the events get media attention is the same reason that Michael Bay dangles succulent pulchritude in front of the slavering permadolescent American masses.  And I ain't down with that.

Women do not derive their value as human beings from their sexual desirability.  Being able to present yourself as sexually aggressive and desirable means exactly nothing.  

What gives a woman value as a person is her intelligence.  Her warmth of heart.  Her insight.  Her thoughtfulness.  Her life-gained wisdom.  Her independence.  Her musicality.  Her creativity.  Her depth of spirit.  Her way with words.  Her kindness.  Her gentleness.  Her tough-as-nails resilience.  Her ferocity.  Her hard work.  Her boldness.   The wisdom of King Lemuel's mother may be several thousand years old, but it remains an excellent metric of what bold, empowered women really look like...and what, if they are wise, men should admire in a woman.  

None of those things correlate with the firmness and desirability of their young, exposed, marketable flesh.

Remembering Product Placement

This long weekend, the family and I spent some quality time at the local mall multiplex.  The missus and I went to see Bridesmaids, which was...well...actually quite entertaining.  I was a bit worried that the ambient estrogen in the room might be too intense, but other than having the strangest feeling that my menstrual cycle was trying to synchronize, I really enjoyed the film.  We cut the boys loose, giving them tickets to Pirates of the 'arribbean: It's the Same Movie Again, Suckers and cash to hit the food court and wander the mall afterwards so Mom and Dad could hang out together.  It was a very, very American evening.

During the ads before the movie (not the trailers, the ads), we were pitched the next movie in the Transformers franchise.  Well, no, actually.  We were pitched a Chevy Camaro, as Bumblebee leapt and blasted and jumped.  Paramount and Hasbro aren't the only companies that have skin in the franchise.  General Motors also makes a point of connecting product to entertainment, insuring that as we watch we are filled with desire for Chevrolets.

We all know this.  Anyone with half a clue knows that product placement goes deep into the culture of moviemaking.   But as I watched the Transformers trailer-slash-ad, I realized that other products were prominently featured.  Very prominently featured.

In the ad, we see a swarm of CGI Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors move towards a Decepticon besieged city.   That's identifiable product.  Not one we buy ourselves, of course.   But product nonetheless, product that needs to be marketed.  The V-22 has a long and troubled development history.  It's an interesting bit of tech, but any weapon system that was in development when I was in high school and still hasn't really been fully adopted...well...it requires a bit of marketing assistance.

So I find myself wondering...to what extent does our arms industry intentionally connect to our entertainment industry?   When I see a Ford or a Chevy, or a can of Coke, or a prominently placed glowing Mac logo, I know that someone's people talked to someone else's people.

But when we see a General Dynamics M1A2 Main Battle Tank blasting away at alien robots, or a Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II raining down depleted uranium rounds on a Decepticon from it's General Electric GAU/A 30mm rotary cannon, I find myself wondering if maybe this isn't random.  These are products, produced by corporations, who have a strong interest in our feeling a stir of boo-yah when we see them dishing out destruction.

Lord knows the big players in the weapons industry pay attention to marketing.  Like in today's Washington Post, where a full page Memorial Day color ad from Boeing reminds Congressmen and Senators that "the people of Boeing honor those who gave their lives for our country's freedom."  And where another full page color ad from the men and women of Lockheed Martin announces, under a flag, that we have "A Nation of Freedom From the Courage of Heroes."   And where, on another undulating flag background, Northrop Grumman tells us that "Bravery Lives Forever."

Seeing those ads, I do remember, but I remember two things.  First, I remember the deaths of men and women who committed themselves to serve our country.  That's a significant thing, and an important thing to honor and remember.

And second, well, second I remember that the wars that claimed their lives are the hundred-billion dollar lifeblood of some very large corporate entities.  That is also something it is important we not forget.

Tie Ins

The Jesus Youth greet you, Unbeliever.

Today, in the church mail, I got the flyer for Group Publishing's Sunday School offerings for 2011.  Group is a tightly run and moderately evangelical shop.  They have their finger on the pulse of our culture, and their stuff is nearly always tied in to major media events.

If there's a pending cinematic extravaganza, an ultra-hyped Hollywood summer blockbuster, you're guaranteed that they'll capitalize on it by producing coursework that harmonizes with whatever the mass market zeitgeist happens to be.  Got a Pirates of the Caribbean flick coming out?  It'll be seafaring VBS.  Finding Nemo coming out?  Expect lots of fish themed Jesus stuff.  I'm actually a bit surprised they haven't done something with zombies.  It's mostly innocuous, positive, well-produced material.  Although it tends to be a bit treacly for my tastes, my own church has used it plenty in past.

This upcoming summer, the next Transformers movie is going to hit Cineplexes near you.  It'll be in 3D, loud and blangy and more-in-your-face than ever.  So of course, the flyer I got in the mail gives good-customer-me a preview of the "Transformer"-themed Jesus curriculum that Group will be pitching out.  A bunch of backlit sword-wielding Jesus children grin out at you, their armor emblazoned with glowing crosses.  The little one in the middle looks remarkably like a young Glenn Beck.

It struck an odd chord. Not because tying the Gospel to big stupid-loud ultraviolent blockbusters seems to dilute the Jesus message, though it does.  Not because the iconography has almost crossed over into Leni Riefenstahl territory, though it has. 

Rather, it's because I'm in the habit of dream-sharing with my children.  If we have a particularly interesting one, we discuss it, exploring its meaning.  My ten year old son, whose dreams are often...well...strangely prescient...had a long vivid dream that he recounted to me in extended detail yesterday.  It was about a dark and violent force that was sweeping across the country.  It was an army, one that brought with it destruction.  He and his friends fought against it, but it proved too strong.

Last night, he showed me a picture of one of the warriors in the army, a little pencil drawing he'd done.  It was an armored robotic figure brandishing a long sword.  Emblazoned on its chest was a cross.  "That's the power source, Dad," said he.  "It uses it to power its weapon.  To defeat it, you have to take out its power source."

It was exactly what I saw in my mailbox this morning.

Tie-ins can be rather odd.