In light of my recent posts on how The Beast is More Dangerous than Gaston, and the discussion that followed regarding domestic violence, I thought this TED Talk was especially helpful at getting at how the Beast masquerades as a Beauty. Leslie Morgan Steiner addresses the question “Why Victims of Domestic Violence Don’t Leave.”
This video is well worth your time…especially if you don’t think you need to watch it.
Yesterday I went to take some photos at Girl’s Inc., a local non-profit that exits to promote the leadership and education of young women in the Bay County area. Our church was doing our annual cityREACH project and a number of our volunteers went to Girl’s Inc. to help spruce the place up a bit.
Now, speaking of the leadership and education of young women, while there, I was having a conversation with three young women, and sisters from our church – Katie (23), Ginny (19), and Regan (16).
While conversing we saw a painting of about 12 famous black women, known for their Civil Rights leadership. We began to guess which woman was which, when we came to the name, “Coretta Scott King” and this conversation took place.
Me: That’s Martin Luther King, Jr.’s wife.
Regan: Yeah, you know who he is. He’s the guy with the store down on Hwy 77…right across from the place with the good Hot Wings.
The Hamricks are weird! But that’s why I love them. Thanks for making every experience a memorable one, ladies!
In a great conversation over lunch with my friend, Terry Tatum, we both celebrated the influence of older Christians in our lives – people who are a generation or two ahead of us who purposely chose to throw themselves into the lives of young men and urge us to godliness.
While I’m grateful for the friends I have that are my age and who desire to serve God, I have become increasingly grateful for those people who have taken their wisdom and their experience and stooped down to me, in whatever ridiculous mire I constantly find myself, and invested of a piece of themselves into me.
I have observed that my generation and those younger than me often do not appreciate the contributions of older believers. From children’s ministries, to middle school, to youth, to college, to young adult classes, we often segregate ourselves and are segregated based on age.
And I lament this.
I wouldn’t be near the Christian I am today if it weren’t for older Christians.
If I can give one piece of advice to young Christians it is this: Surround yourself with older, wiser, grayer, more experienced, seasoned Christians. Join their small groups. Go to their Sunday School classes. Have dinner with them. Ask them questions. Pick their brains. Do what they say. You need them.
If I can give one piece of advice to a seasoned, veteran Christian with gray(ing) hair it is this: We need you. We may not know it, but we do. We have no chance to be the people God created us to be without you and your wisdom and influence. We need you to be there for us and with us and even against us, if need be. We need you to join our small groups, teach our Sunday School classes, invite us over for dinner, pick our brains and let us pick yours. You might even be surprised at how young we keep you!
Here are the seasoned Christians in my life that deserve much more than a blog-post-thank-you…
(In chronological order of influence)
Jack and Robin Tenney, who had me into their home everyday after school my junior year of high school, and were the first to teach me what it meant to love Jesus.
Alan and Neena Lord, who not only gave their daughter to me, but poured their hearts into me in college and after.
Lonnie and Kim Nelson, who to this day mentor my wife and I, mourn with us, laugh with us, and encourage us.
Marty and Kim Allen, who showed us the meaning of hospitality, awkward humor, and the beauty of redemption!
Doug and Sandy Pennington, who have shown us the ropes of ministerial life and given me, in particular, grace upon grace to make mistakes. (They don’t have to show much grace to Cassie, she’s pretty well perfect.)
Summing up part 1 of Why the Beast is More Dangerous than Gaston, I suggested that the Beast is the face of a new kind of patriarchy – a patriarchy that looks soft and sensitive, but is still controlling at its roots, and assumes a hegemonic relationship that looks like love but is still rooted in ownership.
So the question becomes, what has my daughter learned by watching this film?
Nevertheless, I’m afraid here that Disney has also played on the larger pop-cultural stereotypes that all men are idiots, womanizers, abusive and in need of being housebroken by a good woman. Which brings me to the second lesson my daughter has learned…
I don’t know that it would make for a better story, but a better message would certainly be: Whether they guys is overtly forceful like Gaston, or more subtly controlling like the Beast (who I don’t believe ever, EVER, says, “sorry,” by the way!), little girls need to know that control is control, manipulation is manipulation, abuse is abuse, and the best thing for you to do is get out of the relationship as fast as you can.
It’s not your job to play the hero. You have no emotional, psychological, ethical, or spiritual reason to keep yourself in danger.*
In the end, the Beast is more dangerous than Gaston because he appears to be the protagonist, when in actuality, there’s merely a difference in degree and not kind.
Finally, is there any value to my daughter watching this film?
Absolutely. But only if I am there to talk to her about the messages of the movie instead of just letting her passively ingest its messages.
One of those values is, while I wish it would go further, it is leaps and bounds ahead of Disney’s earlier non-efforts to portray relationships of gender equality. (It is, nevertheless, far from the gender dynamics of The Princess and the Frog. )
While I think the Beast does move past the his emotional abusiveness when he learns to give up Belle for her benefit, the best part of the film is when Belle continues to stand up for herself, even before they fall in love. She lets the Beast know clearly that he is not to treat her abusively.
She draws clear boundaries and teaches him how to treat her.
And I will point this out to my daughters. We teach people how to treat us. We are responsible for drawing boundaries to protect ourselves from hurtful persons. Belle does this, for the most part, admirably.
I merely wish that the writers would have shown that part of her boundary drawing needed to be a recognition that focusing on drawing boundaries with the Beast’s emotional abuse is to miss the forest for the trees. Yes, he is emotionally abusive. But his power lies, not in his tempter, but in his captivity. He controls her world. And even if she draws boundaries in one little part of that world, she still lives under his regime…until she gets permission to leave. But even this provides another talking-point for me and my daughter.
In the end, I’m glad Belle and the Beast fell in love – even if I still think outdated gender roles are involved. But I don’t think she should have been in that situation long enough to fall in love.
*Wait for a 3rd post, specifically dedicated to this.
The other day I was watching Disney’s classic, Beauty and the Beast, with my daughter and I found myself thinking that despite Disney’s attempt to challenge traditional notions of masculinity in our culture, the fact remains, they may have actually reinforced them without knowing it. And more specifically, they’ve done it in a way that is more hurtful, than helpful, to young girls because, as I will show, I think the Beast is more dangerous than Gaston.
Gaston is supposed to be the quintessential example of an outdated masculinity – square jaw, huge muscles, violent, unlimited self-confidence, leader of the pack, and womanizer. And in an effort to challenge these images of masculinity, Disney casts Gaston as the antagonist of the story – the kind of character that must die for true love to thrive in the modern world.
Eventually the story attempts to pit the Beast as Gaston’s foil. But initially, anyway, Belle is his foil character. She’s a woman who doesn’t fall for those old, traditional, outdated modes of masculinity. And she refuses to be a mindless pawn in Gaston’s womanizing schemes. For these reasons, she is an admirable, modernized female character.
Or at least, that’s what she appears to be at first. But to understand why her character’s machismo-challenging qualities ultimately fail, I need to explain the Beast.
The Beast is also a foil of sorts to Gaston. At first, he appears to be just like Gaston. He is a man who cannot love and is therefore turned into a beast – in a sort of, what’s-on-the-inside-gets-revealed-on-the-outside kind of way. Beast has lived alone for hundreds of years until he takes Belle’s father captive (notice the use of force and coercion reminiscent of “traditional” masculinity), and then eventually strikes a deal with Belle to take her father’s place. And, again, through the use of force, in a violation of Belle’s ultimate freedom, the Beast holds her and manipulates her and emotionally abuses her.
Until he falls in love with her.
When the Beast falls in love with Belle, he allows her the freedom to leave his castle to save her father…assuming, of course, that she will return. Though he “loves” her, she still needs his permission. And though she has come to love him in return, she is still not truly free. To need his permission to do what is best for her family is to not have true freedom, no matter if one feels “love” toward another person or not. Despite their “love,” Belle is still in subjection to the Beast…only now it is a willing subjection. She has become a willing participant in her own oppression.
Has the beast changed? Yes, in a sense. But has their relationship changed? That’s debatable. I’d say it’s changed in degree not kind.
Now, this brings me to why I think the Beast is more dangerous than Gaston. Gaston’s abusive masculinity plays off stereotypes of men that are undesirable in our modern culture. No little girls wants to grow up and marry a Gaston. His patriarchy is too obvious.
But what makes the Beast so much more dangerous than Gaston is that his patriarchy is much more subtle. Little girls do want to grow up and marry the Beast by the end of the story….after all, Belle wanted to. She is the model for what a modern woman looks for in a spouse.
But while the Beast is supposed to represent the new, modern, emotionally sensitive, loving male, the fact is, he’s not all that different from Gaston.
Sure, the Beast has learned to love. But what kind of love has he learned? A love that still requires Bell to get his permission to act on her own free will? A love that still assumes men win the affection of women through feats of violent showmanship whereby an opponent is shamed? A love that still assumes he “owns” her? A love looks more tender and sensitive than the ‘love’ Gaston offered, but is still just as controlling?
In part 2, based on today’s thoughts, we’ll look at what my daughter is really learning from Beauty and the Beast, both good and bad.
But now it’s your turn: What do you think? Do you think the Beast is more dangerous than Gaston?
*My wife both agreed and disagreed with me in this post. As did all of my readers (Thomas Irby, Candy Passen, and Ashley Cabiness). I am grateful for their disagreement and encouragement.
Yesterday I took my family to Taco Bell for lunch. We ordered our meal, about $12 worth, and ate it. As we were winding down, Cassie told me she had an extra dollar in her purse if I wanted another taco. So took her dollar, went and stood in line, then ordered a taco with only cheese, received it, then went to sit down to eat it.
When I tore off the paper, I saw, inside the hard shell taco, that there was only meat on one half of it. The left half of the taco had a minimal amount of meat and cheese, and the right half of it had nothing…but a trace. And by ‘trace’ I do not mean meat particles, but meat-sauce stains, where it looked like there had been meat there.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ve eaten Taco Bell for years, I know they’re stingy with the meat and cheese. But meat and cheese only on half of it was a bit ridiculous.
My wife also saw and she immediately said, “You need to take that back up there.”
So took the taco, waited patiently in line again, and when I got back to the cashier, I politely (it was not her fault) informed her about the nature of my taco.
Cashier: Well, I can get you another one if you want.
Me: Ummm….no thanks. I’m not really in the mood for another taco now. Can I just get my dollar back?
Cashier: I don’t think I can give you your dollar back. Usually we just replace messed up orders.
Me: Yeah, this is a little different. Besides, I’ve been waiting in line for a while and my kids are getting restless. I’d just like to get my dollar back.
Cashier: Well, I’ll have to ask my manager if we can do that.
Me: No problem.
So I hand her my taco so she can show the manager. I see her take it back to the lady. They have what looked like an intense conversation, regarding which, I thought, “Oh, I sure hope that cashier’s not getting in trouble, it wasn’t her fault.”
Next thing I know, the manager is coming up to the counter with my taco in hand. She has a pretty angry look on her face…but it was a scowl directed at me.
Manager: This taco only has half the meat on it!
Me: Uh….right…that was my problem with it, too.
Manager: No. This taco only has half the meat on it.
Me: Right. That’s why I brought it back up here.
Manager: But there used to be meat on this other side. I can see the meat sauce where it was there.
Me: Yes. I can see that, too.
Manager: Well, there was meat there and now there’s not.
Me: Right! And if you think someone ate half that taco meat, you’d better check with your employees because it wasn’t me.
She continued to eye me incredulously, looking for a sign of me having lied about the taco meat.
Me: Look, I don’t know what the problem is. I just ordered this thing. The cashier can tell you. I’ve already eaten a full meal here. And I’ve been entirely polite about this thing. But I didn’t eat that meat and I would like me dollar back.
With that accusatory scowl still lingering on her face, she crumpled up the taco and threw it in the trash. She then, in a huff, got into the cash register and forced the dollar into my hand.
I walked away, not sure if I was more angry or more amused.
Random Guy: What was that all about?
Me: The manager just basically accused me of ordering a taco, eating half the meat off it, and then bringing it back. Heck, if I was going to bring it back, I could’ve come up with a better story than “it wasn’t there to begin with.”
Can someone tell me what Wesley means in the following paragraph. His larger discussion is about how faith and grace have freed us from sin and it’s guilt…therefore, we believers are not bound to it.
But this wording is so awkward and, maybe, archaic, that I’m not sure what he means.
Nor (4.) Doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word, or thought; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will; and without this they are not properly sins. Thus, “he that is born of God doth not commit sin”: and though he cannot say he hath not sinned, yet now “he sinneth not.”
Slap some glasses on Emperor Palpatine…
…and call him John Piper.
And here he is using the force…
And again trying the Jedi Mind Trick…which won’t work for him.
Continuing my thoughts from previous posts on How I Met Your Mother, I think Ted’s major problem is that he thinks there is one perfect woman out there (created for him by a faceless providence) who will love him just the way he is and she will make him happy just the way she is.
But that’s just not how good relationships work. That’s not how love works.
Love isn’t built on a lazy reliance on providence or mysterious guiding hands.
Love isn’t built on “you let me be me and I’ll let you be you.”
Love is built on our choices and hard work to both continually make the other person our “one” and continually make ourselves into “the one” for the other person.
Love is built by us working with God to improve our end of the relationship.
Love is built on the understanding that the person I marry is never right for me. And if they are right for me, give them a few years and they won’t be anymore.
Love is built on the fundamental, mutual understanding that the other person can’t ultimately bring me true happiness – though, with God, they can contribute to my happiness.
Love is built on the understanding that each of us is always changing, always developing, always becoming more or less of who God created us to be. And marriage is the journey of learning who that other person is over and over again.
And Ted’s problem is that I just don’t think he’s ready to hear any of that. And neither is American culture. We don’t want to have to work for it. We don’t want to change. We want everything from coffee to marriage to be easy. And it’s going to kill us.
Sure, in 2030, Ted is telling his kids about how he met their mother, “the one.” But what happens in 2040 when she just isn’t making him happy any more? What happens when the day comes when he looks at her and thinks, “Maybe she wasn’t perfect for me, after all”? What happens when he sees how much she’s changed and says, “Eh, we were perfect for each other back in the day, but she’s just changed so much.”
In all likelihood, since Ted is a projection of American culture in general, Ted will probably say, “Well, kids, I made a mistake. I thought she was the one, but clearly she is not. I need to drop her and go find “the one.” Sorry for wasting your time.” And in 2040, CBS will have another sitcom titled, “How I Met Your Step Mother.”
I guess my point is this: The sooner we drop this idea of “one” perfect person out there, the better. There are no perfect people. And I’m not perfect. But as Cassie and I make each other “the one,” we see through (not around!) each other’s imperfections, challenge one another to be better, and still devote ourselves to each other, even when we fail.
Don’t wait for “the one” to show up. Make someone “the one.” And then keep making them “the one.”
Brent: My high school teacher used to have a poster on her wall that said, “If you aim at the moon, even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.”
Me: That’s encouraging.
Brent: When I tried to explain to her that it is astronomically impossible, she didn’t understand what I was talking about.
Me: She must not have been a natural literalist.
Brent: Yeah. That AND I was smarter than her.
I love getting to work with this guy. Sometimes I feel bad for Candy when Brent and I go off on our random tangents.
