Lessons from Thule: Living in a nonviolent female-led Utopia


The interesting part of literature like utopian stories and sociological science fiction is that it gives you a chance to explore how a world with other basic constants would look like. For that reason I’ve always been a fan of Ursula Le Guins sociological scifi stories, like ‘Planet of Exiles’, ‘the Word for world is forest’, and ‘the Telling’. (Yeah, I know, canon says I should like ‘the dispossessed’ and ‘the left hand of darkness’, but those aren’t my favourites personally, especially not when reading pleasure is in-calculated) It helps us to look at our own culture and question the unquestioned, to help us see the water we’re swimming in as fishes. Human societies can take completely different and sometimes opposite things for granted, which is why stories in which completely other things are taken as self-evident are important. No culture is ever neutral, no person is an objective observer untainted by bias.

Our own worldview itself, as well as all of our culture is just constructed over time, and usually more or less an accident of history. Virtually nothing of our culture is completely ‘an imperative of the laws of nature’. There are endless possibilities of how it could have ended up completely differently. We could have a high society without wheels (like the Inca empire), we could have a society completely integrated into nature (like a lot of rainforest tribes), a world where the unhealthy male gaze is obsessed with the male body instead of the female body (like the old Greeks), a culture where pink is the colour for boys and blue the colour for girls (which existed not that long ago) and so on…

The Beckman, 1974 (picture: wikipedia)

Just looking at cultures around the world can give us a lot of variety in how things could be different, but there are way much more possibilities than we find actualised around us in this era. And that’s why we need  utopian and dystopian fiction as a way of exploring what could be. And all of that is just one of the reasons that I like -among many other pieces of fiction- Thea Beckmans Thule trilogy: she gives us insight into a possible world where humans have abolished violence, and made women the natural leaders of society. That seems to be a rather rare combination, even in fiction. I cannot remember having read a story about a combination of a friendly culture based on respect for every life and a strong matriarchy, but it is fascinating still.

 

See also in this series: and Lessons from Thule: A description of Thulene and Badener society

The society of Thule in the books is based on what they consider to be ‘female values’ of compassion, caring for all life, balance and intuition. I have no idea if these ideas are indeed more female than male, but apart from the imbalances in the reversal of gender roles (especially in book 1) I’d say there aren’t that many aspects that could be seen as unhealthy in a damaging way in their culture. The friendly and non-violent culture will be for another post, but as a Christian I can also add that the Thulenes, while ‘Pagans’ as the Badeners call them with their almost nonreligious reverence of Mother Earth, are much closer to living out the teachings of Christ and the Kingdom of God than the supposedly Christian Badeners, who have retained a ‘mutilated’ form of Christianity and use religion for oppression as the first book calls it.

The Thulenes do have love for their neighbour, love for the least, they are responsible for all of creation and almost have a world where ‘the lion can sleep next to the lamb’ (or the Badener next to the bear at least, to the astonishment of Kilian). And much more ‘love your enemy’ than most historical Christian societies. So in terms of ‘positive values’ the Thulenes actually live out the important rules of all major religions: don’t kill, don’t hate, respect others, don’t take what isn’t yours, be honest,… And those are rooted I respect and love for all life, a form of encompassing pro-life philosophy: All lives matter, human and non-human, and should be treated well.

This way of life has become deeply ingrained throughout the centuries that have passed since the arrival of Sigrid Helgadottir in Thule. The Thulenes don’t really know much male violence after centuries of female nonviolent caring-for-all-life dominance. The idea of men fighting is seen as almost obscene, sexual harassment is a taboo, and men don’t ever get the chance to become leaders. So there is nothing rational to fear, for them there are no examples of what can go wrong with men in leadership it is just assumed it will go wrong.
The justification of those views of men also lies in ‘the Great Catastrophe’, World War III; when men almost destroyed the planet and all life on it. Which is a clear sign that men are not to be trusted.

Once, an unthinkably long time ago, Kimora had told him, things had been different: In spite of their greater talents, sensitiveness, and importance women didn’t have power. Men had led the world, which hadn’t really worked out. Century after century injustice, cruelty and selfishness had ruled, and century after century rivers of blood had flowed. People had hated each other and didn’t know what to come up with to harm each other as much as possible. It had been dark times and the inevitable happened, and it ended badly. (Children of Mother Earth, p. 20)

The more extreme parts of the ‘only women can have leadership’ ideas in Thule are not completely rooted in reality, but also shrouded in myth. The Great Catastrophe has become a myth about the destructiveness of men, and the Konega and her Council of Women just like the situation as it is, even though it is, as her husband calls it, a ‘soft oppression’ for men, for half of the population.

The funny thing is that the Badeners, who indeed provide an example of a male-led culture that rather seems to prove the myth of how dangerous it is to have male leadership, are the catalyst to end the imbalance of the ‘soft oppression’: the help of Konega-husband Rajo and Konega-son Christian and other men, even in positions of responsibility and leaders, is needed to save Thule from this danger. It is only the extreme situations that give Rajo and Christian the courage to stand against the -indeed extremely conservative- Council of women. The Council doesn’t want things to change, and like it as it is, which is dangerous in situations when crisis management is needed, as was the case when the Konega had to deal with the Badeners while the rest of the Council of Women was back to their own districts, and she had to take measures that were bordering on taboo to prevent even worse.

The second and third book have lost the tension of the ‘soft oppression’, and have less restrictions for men. But it’s still only a few men at the women Council (Christian the Konega-son and Rajo her husband in book 2) against 26 women or so. Which is an enormous step forward that is seen as enough.

Anyone who is shocked by that idea, 2 men on almost 30 people being enough equality; must think of the inverse situations in our worlds that are -both by men and women- also seen as sufficient. I think Thea Beckman really intends the (young) reader to think about that too.

And unlike our world (and the Badener empire, where most people are oppressed and in dire circumstances)) the ‘soft oppression’ is not killing people and leading to abuse and violence, just keeping people from higher positions. Which I certainly would prefer over the world we have now. I’d rather be a man without power -I don’t have much power myself anyway personally with the place I occupy as a teacher- in a female-led world where literally every life matters (human, animal, plant) and I know my life is safe and people will be friendly to each other nonetheless than living in a world where my own sex is ruling and screwing it up as we so often see in our world.

I have no idea how a female-led world would look like in the real world. There probably are as many possibilities as with a male-led world, some healthy and other more dystopian and dehumanising than the old Spartan polis. But fiction gives us ideas of what could be, and I must confess that the land of Thule is one I would very much like to live in, even as a man, for a lot of reasons (some of which will appear in following posts)…

And sometimes we need to open up our mind for new possibilities!

What do you think?

Peace

Bram

Boys do cry, according to Genesis


‘Sorrowing old man’ by Vincent Van Gogh (public domain)

Yes, I know that according to the Cure, boys don’t cry, but according to Genesis they certainly do cry. Not just boys, but grown men even! I’m not really speaking of the band here though, but of the ancient book that opens the collection of holy scripture that is commonly called the Bible. It is also a common sentiment in some more macho cultures (not all though): boys don’t cry, men don’t show their feelings. Men don’t show affection even often.

Which is a quite stupid and unhealthy thing for boys and men. Not being able to show emotions, never even learning how to understand your own emotions, and acting like they don’t exist is just a recipe for disaster in personal relationships and for general unrecognized unhappiness.

How easily people take things for granted because they are part of their culture… I know from stories in other times and cultures that there are places as well it is obvious that men do weep, show feelings extravagantly, and are affectionate with each other. Most Mediterranean and Mid-Eastern cultures for example, macho as they are, have no problem with weeping men and men being affectionate.
And that seems to have been the case from very early on in biblical times even. I found an interesting example of that when I was reading parts of the book of Genesis on the patriarchs lately I noticed that the culture of Abraham and Jacob, which is completely different from my own culture and any current culture I know of, doesn’t have any problem with men weeping, or showing emotions and affection. Jacob himself is very emotional when he meets Laban for example, as well as rather affectionate with embraces and kisses towards Laban; a family member that he has never seen before:

(Let’s use the KJV for dramatic effect)

Genesis 29:10 And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother. 11 And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. 12 And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son: and she ran and told her father. 13 And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things. (KJV)

A few chapters and I think 20 years later he repeats the same emotional and affectionate thing with his brother Esua, who tried to kill him just a few chapters (and also some 20 years) before:

Genesis 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men.(…) 4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept. (KJV)

Same for example with Joseph and his brothers later on, who even weeps so loud that it’s heard outside:

Genesis 45: 1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. And he wept aloud: and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard.
(…) 
14 And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. 15 Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him. (KJV)

Now, what does that mean? Apart from being a description of a culture in which men express their feelings and are rather affectionate with each other it doesn’t mean’Boys don’t cry’ is a stupid idea, unsupported by the bible and not healthy for men. A lot of men in the bible (and Mediterranean cultures) are much more emotional and affective, with Jacob and Jesus as examples. much more than that in some cultures this is normal and ‘boys don’t cry’ would be abnormal and alien.
It’s not because something is in the bible that it should be emulated, and the time and culture of the patriarchs is certainly full of things we shouldn’t emulate. Abraham lied, Lot wanted to give his daughters to a gang of rapists, Jacob cheated on everyone who came close to him except for his wives, but then again having four wives (or 2 wives and 2 concubines that are slaves of your actual wives) isn’t a very good idea either.

Brooklyn_Museum_-_Jesus_Wept_(Jésus_pleura)_-_James_Tissot

Jacques Joseph Tissot, detail from ‘Jesus wept’ (public domain)

But there are better examples here that show that in biblical times it was normal for men to cry.
Jesus Himself, the Incarnate Christ, cried according to the shortest verse in the entire bible in most English bibles. (Jesus wept – John 11:35) Jesus is weeping here for the death of His friend Lazarus, even though He knows that Lazarus will be raised from the dead by a miracle later that day. But He is also said elsewhere to be weeping for Jerusalem. Just as other men weep and cry all over the bible.

Note that for the second part of where Jacob was different from modern male gender patterns we have also New Testament examples. Men are very affectionate with each other in the New Testament, which includes kisses too. Jesus is betrayed with a kiss, but it’s also very clear that the first Christians greeted each other with a kiss. ‘Greet each other with a holy kiss’ is a command we find at the end of a lot of Pauline letters, but one that few ever quote.

(Although the midst of the Covid-19 Coronavirus pandemic [wold-o-meters link for current state of the whole thing] might not be the best moment to tell people to kiss each other more though.. But you should get the principle.)

And even with the most careful hermeneutics it should be clear that whatever the word ‘biblical’ means, a ‘Boys don’t cry’ mentality certainly isn’t that. The bible shows us a lot of cultures in which men are emotional, and show their tears (also tears of joy) and affectionate with each other. Just as was and is common in a lot of other cultures throughout the ages. Which is the normal and healthy thing.

But as a Christian I think it’s quite obvious to say that if God Incarnate Himself didn’t have a ‘boys don’t cry’ attitude, and wept regularly, that it should be clear that such a mentality cannot be defended at all.

It’s also clear that the whole ‘boys don’t cry’ mentality and everything attached to it isn’t healthy at all, so maybe we best just get rid of it… It’s just silly internalized misandry and taking away a part of your humanity. All people have emotions. It’s not bad for boys and men to cry, nor to be affectionate.

What do you think

peace

Bram

US-style ‘Dating’, or the Opposite of what Relationships are supposed to be…


We were watching what was supposed to be a romantic Hollywood comedy movie last night,  and then it became more of an anthropological analysis of a world that was not only completely alien and terrifying, but also not completely comprehensible.

Thinking more about I wrote a FB post with some thought on the subject of that is called ‘dating’ in modern US-influenced popular culture earlier today, that I also posted in several groups, and which which mostly got agreements and some additions with more nuance from people. The original post read something like (it was posted in several versions and is slightly edited again here):

Yesterday I was having a bit of a cultural disconnect moment while watching a Hollywood movie with my wife (‘He’s not that into you’ or something like that, with Jennifer Aniston and other well-known people that I didn’t recognize myself). She was annoyed with how the women were portrayed as stupid creatures (Well, the men really weren’t much better I’d say) and we couldn’t really figure out what the age of the characters was supposed to be. (For behaviour somewhere early twenties, although they were more than teenagers in a way, but other signs said thirties already, especially for the Jennifer Aniston character).

Now the biggest question was about the whole idea of ‘dating relationships’. I’ve always been rather confused by the way dating functions in US fiction and stuff influenced by it (I have no access to the real world over the ocean except through FB friends and the like though) and the way dates seem to function as liminal moments in which a romantic relationship (including intimacy and sometimes sex) is temporarily present, which is over when the date is over and then becomes something very vague that leads to a lot of stress, insecurity and mostly a lot of pursuit of unhappiness.

The contrast is big with the approach to relationships that I saw when I was young here in Belgium: the most childish way of taking about relationships was ‘het aanmaken’, or ‘het is aan’. When ‘it’ was ‘on’, you had a relationship, when the relationship was over it was ‘off’. So you were in a relationship or you weren’t, even in a stage of hand-holding teenagers, and there really wasn’t that much confusion about that. You are in a relationship or not. Dates could occur in the relationship evidently, but they did in no way define anything. If you’re ‘together’ you need to see each other and do stuff together, not?

I’ve also noted that the word ‘verkering’ (a word usually for teenagers, for a steady and commited but casual relationship, a stage of relationship in between the first kiss or ‘het is aan’ until getting engaged) doesn’t exist in English. Translator services translate it with ‘courtship’ (which sounds extremely formal to me, or reminds me of creepy American purity culture) or with ‘dating’ (see all of this).

It seems to me that the whole dating game that I see in movies (with its strange and contradicting rules that only make it more hell) doesn’t have any way of providing that stability of ‘it’s on’ in child language. Relationships seem quite uncertain until people are engaged or so, and people seem to be dating several people at the same time (rather intimately) without any commitment.

Also, the whole idea of having romantically intimate (or even sexual) dates before you really know each other just creeps me out. Without knowing someone enough as a friend already I would never want to be romantic with anyone, and it sounds like a recipe for disaster actually. How can one start a meaningful relationship without a friendship in which it is possible to talk about important things? Shouldn’t relationships that are supposed to become a family together develop from friendship – ‘verkering’ -engagement – marriage?

So while I certainly am a fan of both dating inside a relationship and hanging around to get to know each other (as friends, without any pressure, and certainly without games and nonsense rules), the whole thing called dating, at least in movies, sounds toxic and and stupid to me, and potentially more a vaccination against good relationships than something that leads to healthy couples.

But maybe my analysis is completely off? What do you think? (crossposted in several very different groups and no-one said my analysis was off yet)

What I didn’t get was reactions that my analysis was completely off. Some people warned me that Hollywood isn’t exactly reality. Luckily that is true, but on the other hand US Americans shouldn’t forget that Hollywood provides a picture of reality that is seen a ‘this is America’ by non-Americans. And it seems that (at least for some Americans) dating culture is a hell even worse than what the movies show.

A main point for a lot of people seems to be that ‘the dating world’, especially in the US it seems, is confusing as hell, and that all people who are married or in a relationship who are happy to not have to participate in it, and that some even are single because of it.

After thinking more about the whole thing there are some points that I think are worth stating.

  1. I strongly believe that the best way to handle romantic relationships that are meant to become a family and a partnership for life (I can’t say much about other relationships, and they don’t really interest me either) is to start from a friendship in which open communication about stuff like for example being anxious about this whole dating world and its mad rules among other things. Without that it’s mad to start something with anyone.
    From that I would go through a stage of ‘verkering’/’going steady’, or a growing romantic and committed relationship, followed by engagement and marriage when the time is ripe. (Not too soon, not too late). I also believe it is very important to be clear on where you are, always.
  2. A lot of other non-Americans seem to find the US situation incomprehensible too. I’m rather glad about that for the rest of the planet, but I offer my condolences to any Americans that are screwed by this culture.
  3. The confusion about not knowing where you are in a relationship (that even was a sexual relationship on the last date) sounds like hell. How can anyone live with that? See what I wrote about a friendship with open communication in point 1. I wouldn’t even have a first kiss with someone that I can’t talk about what kind of relationship we’d be in.
    The strange thing is that it seems that people are really intentional about not defining their relationships (or DTR, there even seems to be an acronym) for reasons that I can’t seem to wrap my head around. There even seems to be an active peer pressure even to not define relationships or even call them relationships because that would put pressure on them or something like that.
    I have no idea what that would even mean but it sounds like a very bad idea and an absolute recipe for disaster. And I’m glad that all of this sounds very alien to me. (My condolences again to those stuck with this kind of screwed-upness)
  4. It seems that both weird forms of evangelical ‘purity culture’ (‘don’t ever be alone with someone of the opposite sex’ madness) and the strange and contradictory rules of ‘the dating game’ try to actively keep people from said friendships in which can be communicated like that. Which is keeping people away from a basic requirement without which relationships will always be unstable. Instead of looking for signs and trying to find out what the other might have meant people should just say that they need to say.
  5. There seems to be an element of consumerism too on ‘the dating market’. When you reduce people to products to consume you’ll never be able to have healthy relationships with them. Aforementioned friendship would already be impossible, or make this approach to human beings impossible… (There are more ways in which consumer capitalism is deadly to relationships, but I’m not the one to go to deep in that rabbit hole and that would divert from the topic of this post)
  6. This is probably the place too to give my opinion on ‘hook-up culture’ and one-night stands, which is not based on religion here but merely on the relational wisdom outlined elsewhere: if you’re not in a relationship with someone that enables you to understand each other very well when talking about sex and intimacy it’s just a very stupid and potentially very destructive idea to have sex with them.
    Let’s add to that that hook-up culture very easily becomes rape culture with just the tiniest hint of either sexual entitlement or peer pressure, both of which seem to be more present too in the US than here by the way.
  7. The idea that men and women cannot be friends is not only nonsense, but also very very very problematic, as you should have gathered from everything else I wrote here. See also: The friendship is the benefits (on Christian egalitarianism and cross-gender friendships)
  8. Speaking of vaccinations against relationships: porn in modern society is probably one of the things that destroy relationships in very different ways. But that’s another topic.
  9. It seems that the words ‘sex’ and ‘intimacy’ are used almost as synonyms sometimes, while they certainly aren’t. There is a lot of intimacy outside of sex and sexual relationships, and a lot of sex isn’t really that intimate at all. Hook-up sex, and whatever porn describes, (as well as the ‘men need sex as a physical release, wife give it to him’ of certain US evangelical marriage books) can be completely devoid of intimacy and even the opposite of it.
  10. Marriage itself when it turns into an obsession more important than your partner themselves can become an idol that is destructive to your relationship. Same with wedding days when they become more important than your partner and your relationship.
  11. If this is what is called ‘Dating’ in the US I understand now that Josh Harris kissed it goodbye. It’s just that not much of the things he proposes instead seems to be a better alternative…
  12. I can understand how this mess turns men into Incels and MGTOW and the like. Which is also a destructive and a rather effective vaccination against healthy relationships.
  13. Saying ‘I love you’ seems very hard for a lot of people even in romantic relationships (also something I don’t really get. I’d think it’s a requirement very early on). But I think it’s important to be able to say those words and mean them.

So, to summarize, my own relationship advice: be honest, be yourself, be open, form a strong frelovelutionriendship before you even think of ‘intimacy’ (which is a lie anyway without a relationship, you can’t communicate love that isn’t there), talk about everything, and look for someone with whom you can run away from all the dating game nonsense.

The best way to have a healthy relationship is to just short-circuit all the nonsense, and go your own way together. So anyway, before you ‘date’ or whatever you call it with someone, it’s probably good to form a friendship deep enough to talk about how to evade, subvert and completely ignore the whole nonsense of dating, and then face the madness world together.

That sounds like a very good bonding experience by the way…

What do you people think?

Peace

Bram

Other posts:
Joshua Harris, unkissed frogs and false promises
on sexy porn models and human dignity
Women need respect, men need love (3) Men need love, and not just sex…
Sexual entitlement, Involuntary celibacy, porn and losing your humanity

Lessons from Thule: A description of Thulene and Badener society


The Beckman, 1974 (picture: wikipedia)

Like I said in my last post I’ve been rereading Thea Beckmans Thule trilogy recently. There are several interesting ideas in the books that are worth blogging about, which is problematic since they are only available in Dutch. So in this post I will try to summarise the most important details of the intriguing worldbuilding of the trilogy as a reference for further posts in this series.

In a way the books are built around a simple post-apocalyptic reboot of humanity, in which some cultures have learnt from ‘the Great Catastrophe’ (nuclear world warIII), and others haven’t a thousand years later: The Thulenes have a nonviolent culture based on respect for life and the leadership of women, while their opponents the Badeners are a dystopian mix of the negative aspects of European cultures of the last few centuries that isn’t actually that unrealistic.

See also:

The land of Thule
The land of Thule is a temperate-climate Greenland in a world where the North pole has moved to Japan and the South pole to South America. It is inhabited by people of mixed race, mostly descendants of Danish colonists and Inuit from before the Great Catastrophe. The capital is Gothab. The language is Thulene, which isn’t used in the books, but is the place and person names are a good indication that it falls something in between Inuit languages and Scandinavian too. People on the coast often known some Kanadene as a second language, descended from English and still mutually intelligible with the languages of the Merikans and Brits.

Thule: General culture:
Thule has a simple and rather low-tech culture, depending on horses and windmills. No-one is poor and no-one except for the royal Konega-family is rich. Communities share most of their stuff: houses, boats and horses belong to the whole community, but people do have personal property too. They also use silver money, but part of the wages is paid in various stuff. Children in school don’t just learn theory but also how to build houses and other practical stuff, and most people make furniture themselves.

He (Kilian) would have to search for a job, because his academic degrees were worthless here in this country. Thulenes had a completely different education than children in the Badener Empire. Here they were taught carpentry, sailing, cooking, shipbuilding, and all kinds of practical matters. And what were his skills? Nothing like that… (THP p.262)

Frederiksborg is an important university city. 80% of the university population is female, since men are rather rare in higher jobs. Thulenes have printing presses and colour print. Gunpowder is known but normally only used for fireworks or mining. Fire-arms are unknown orand later considered taboo. The only weapon used is a kind of stun-gun with little poisoned arrows, or the thorns of which the poison comes, that make an animal or human fall unconscious for a while. Men with weapons are seen as extremely indecent, except in the case of woodsmen. The idea of men fighting is shameful, almost obscene.

Important areas are the Capital Gothab on the West coast, the Holtak-district where the vases vases with gold-dust are made in the middle, and Kulus in the East. The Mining districts are in the North, where winters are still cold. Gold is exported to Kanada for wheat, and most trade with other countries is barter.
The population runs in the millions, but no-one has ever counted how much Thulenes there are, since people are not registered. They only have first names, except for the women descending from the ‘Mother of the Motherland’ Sigrid Helgadottir who are called ‘Dottir’ and are considered some kind of nobility. Most of the dottirs seem to be connected to trade.

Thule: Nature
Thulenes live very close to nature, and feel like themselves are a part of nature. Destruction of nature is punishable. Hunting is generally forbidden, and for every tree that is cut down a new sapling must be planted. Killing an animal is seen as murder almost as much as killing a human. The Thulenes import wild animals from Kanada for the balance of nature, and have a very diverse wildlife with deer, 4 species of bears (it’s implied that ice bears have survived too in the North, and adapted to a more temperate climate), wolves, foxes, moose, and much more. The people are friendly to animals, even predators and are in return rarely attacked by them and often treated as friends by animals.

I don’t understand, Kilian thought. This wilderness is full of devouring beasts, but this morning a wolf only woke me up and then ran away from me. And I seem to have slept in the arms of a bear, which didn’t do me any harm either. Shouldn’t people feer them at all?
No, he answered his own question. Not if the bear thought you were a Thulene. (THP p. 226)

Marine mammals are also friends of the Thulenes, and orcas even know the difference between the Thulene language of friendly humans and the Badener language of enemies who want to kill them. Elvira knows to ward off an orca that wants to attack the lifeboat after her ship has sunk by talking to it in Thulene, although it tries to attack people speaking Badeners.

Meat is eaten though, but only from old animals that have lived a happy life, which makes all meat extremely chewy. Birds are never eaten or killed. Eating fish is less of a taboo than eating meat, but in the dolphin season fish is left for dolphins and humans and not fished by people.
Poaching and destruction of nature get punished harshly with a mark in the face. (see later)

Thule: Gender roles
Thule is clearly a matriarchy: women are leaders in every aspect of society, they held most jobs with power, and they are seen as the more responsible sex. Men are seen as not to be trusted with power, which is connected to the stories about the Great Catastrophe, when the world was almost destroyed by men. Apart from that the society of Thule is not only very friendly but also egalitarian. There are hardly any class distinctions and people of all classes mingle with each other.

Men were nice, strong, often friendly creatures that could do the heavy work, that could plough the land, cut down trees, carry heavy loads and build houses, but couldn’t be trusted with something as sensitive as governing a country. They were too rude for that, too headstrong and selfish… Am I rude and selfish? Christian wondered. Was my father Rajo? (KOMA p.20)

This is also reflected in the political system: Thule is ruled by the Konega with the Council of Women, which consists of all district leaders and sometimes family members of the Konega, but traditionally no men. A small reform at the end of the first book tried to balance the inequality between the sexes by giving the men in the Konega-family a place in the Council of women too. In the third book, 50 years later that means 3 men and 26 women. Other cultures close to Thule like the Kanadenes and the Baffinlanders seem to also be female-led by the way.

Thule: Relationships and Marriage
monogamous marriage based on love seems to be the norm, but with reversal of traditional gender patterns: Christian at the beginning of the first book for example is horrified by the idea that he, as a Konega-son, might have to ask a woman himself instead of her asking him. Apart from that it seems that relationships are both rather relaxed and serious at the same time and based on friendship and intimacy.
Intercultural relationships and marriages, even with Badeners, are not seen as a problem at all if the character of the outsider has proven to be good.

Nanora had told her friends of the weaver mill enthusiastically about the young sailor who was so nice, had such a sweet face, cared so much about his mother and behaved so well. It wasn’t true at all that all of the Badeners were fiddling around with your body, that they were intrusive and brutal and thought that all girls just had to do whatever they liked. Erich was completely different: modest and careful. He left the initiative to his girlfriend, as it should be, and waited quietly until it was time for more intimate caresses. Really, Badeners were okay if you got to know them. (THP p 307)

Women get only a few children, because they have more things to do with their life than being a mother. (I suppose contraception is implied but not named because it is a childrens’ book after all. Nothing is said about sex explicitly.) Girls are sometimes valued above boys, although in theory boys are loved equally. People are very relaxed about nudity and young people are very playful and relaxed about their bodies in general. (Compared to the prudish Badeners) Prostitution is unknown, and harassment of women or violence within a relationship is a strong taboo.

The one exception to people being free to choose their own partner is the succession law for the Konega-family: a Konega-son can traditionally only marry a woman from the ‘dottir’ families, because of the supposed genetic superiority of the family line of Sigrid Helgadottir. This rather eugenic practice is called out as such by Christian, as he struggles with his love for the non-dottir girl Thura, and this law also gets a reform at the end of the first book for Christian and Thura.

Thule: Religion
Thulenes have a rather non-religious reverence for mother Earth, which is mostly just seen as the planet herself. They are not offended when Badeners describe it like that either. There are no priests or religious services, only small open temples in which people can sit in silence. These temples typically have a place on which one or more vases (if possible Holtak-vases made with gold-clay) with flowers are put express thankfulness.

Thule: Political system
Thulenes have a monarchy led by a Konega. The first Konega was Sigrid Helga-dottir, who came from Yselan (Iceland), and the Icelandic matronym ‘dottir’ became a kind of clan name for her female descendants, which were seen as women of great intelligence and intuition. Only a dottir can be a Konega. Thura becomes the first non-dottir Konega-mother, and her daughter Ferika-dottir then became the successor of Christians mother Armina-dottir.

The Council of Women consists of the leaders of all districts of Thule, and is in Gothab with the Konega half of the year and in their own district the rest of the year. District leaders, as well as region and city leaders are chosen democratically by men and women, based on their competence and skills, and always female.

Thule: Punishment system
The last intriguing part of Thulene society is their unique system of punishment. Thulenes never use violence (their worst weapon is a stun gun) and they don’t take away someone’ Continue reading

Thea Beckmans Thule trilogy: The best post-apocalyptic dystopian/utopian fiction that was never translated to English.


The Beckman, 1974 (picture: wikipedia)

Recently I’ve been rereading some books that I liked as a kid that I know to still make sense to me  as an adult and that’s quite an interesting exercise. So when I found ‘Het helse paradijs’ (the infernal paradise) by Thea Beckman in a secondhand bookstore I didn’t even think about it and bought it. It’s a fantastic book, second in a trilogy that I would put on the level of Narnia, Terry Pratchett’s Tiffany Aching books, Astrid Lindgrens Ronja the Robbersdaughter and the ‘Avatar: Legend of Aang’ cartoons.

Thea Beckman (1923-2004) is a rather well-known writer of books for older children (‘jeugdboeken’) in Dutch-speaking areas. I think the three Thule books are 12+ or so, something like what is weirdly called ‘Young Adult’ in the English-speaking world, but I certainly must have been younger than that when I read most of them. She’s famous for high-quality historical fiction, like ‘kruistocht in spijkerbroek’ (available in English as ‘Crusade in Jeans‘, also made into a film in 2006), but also for example for her impressive trilogy around the hundred years’ war. But the books I remember and loved most aren’t historical books but the trilogy about the future land of Thule and its conflicts with the great Badener empire. ‘Het helse paradijs’ is actually the second book of the trilogy, so later that week I went to look for the first one, and I couldn’t resist the third one too. Luckily they are easily found in the better bookshop: even though being written in the eighties they are still reprinted constantly. Rereading the books has been a pleasure, they are still as good as ever so I’m still rereading them; and they contain some very interesting ideas.

See also the next post:

It’s also interesting how European the story is, an American for example wouldn’t write  a story like this. Thea Beckman endured the second world war under the fascism of the nazis (The Netherlands were occupied for most of the war, as was Belgium where I live) and wrote the books in the cold war from inside country that had no influence on the madness of the idiotic arms race between the US and the USSR and the possibility of total destruction of the planet. Both have certainly influenced her views on the future of planet Earth and human civilisation.

Thule and the Baderner Empire
The Thule books are built around a clash between an utopia and a dystopia, and contain intriguing experiments in speculative sociology: what happens when a nonviolent female-dominated culture meets an aggressive colonialist culture that wants to subdue it. How will both sides see each other? How will they react to each other in conflict? The whole series gives a very interesting critique and sometimes outright deconstruction of fascism, militarism, colonialism, male chauvinism, societies based on aggression, industrialism that destroys nature, and so on. The stories follow 2 countries in a recovering post-apocalyptic world some thousand years after a nuclear world war III, which has hit the planet hard: her axis has changed, the continents have been redrawn, and the poles have moved to Japan and South-America. Most of humanity and other life has been killed in the mad nuclear war, but over time nature has stabilised again, and humanity too has come back from near-extinction so new civilisations are rising up again on what’s left of the world. Greenland has become the green land the name has always suggested it was and it is now the matriarchal nation of Thule. Meanwhile in central-Europe an industrial colonial power named the Badeners is rising up to conquer everything in sight in the name of progress and civilisation.

The difference between both cultures couldn’t be bigger: the Thulenes, descendants of a mix of mostly North-Europeans and Inuit that survived the Great Catastrophe, have only women in power, they even believe than men should never have power since men were responsible for the Great Catastrophe, and can be called fanatically non-violent ecofeminist, living in peace with nature, with a rather limited use of money, and a taboo on men having too much power, since that was what led to the Great Catastrophe. The Badeners, named after an area in between Germany and Switzerland, are a violent and (self)destructive culture, combining industrial colonialism with a form of fascism (later replaced by some kind of democracy), and are always trying to expand their territory, having conquered most other European people except for the Brits and supposedly some South-European countries. Fear and oppression as well as poverty and pollution plus a heavy dose of corruption are the price for a ‘great civilisation’.

Kinderen van Moeder Aarde

Men were nice, strong, often friendly creatures that could do the heavy work, that could plough the land, cut down trees, carry heavy loads and build houses, but couldn’t be trusted with something as sensitive as governing a country. They were too rude for that, too headstrong and selfish… Am I rude and selfish? Christian wondered. Was my father Rajo? (p.20)

The first book ‘Kinderen van Moeder Aarde’ (Children of Mother Earth) follows the royal family of Thule at the time of the first expedition of the Badeners to what the old maps called ‘Groenland’. The main character throughout most of the book is the Konega-son Christian, whose name is not referring to Christianity (the Thulenes have an almost non-religious reverence of ‘Mother Earth’ as religion) but just a Scandinavian-sounding name like most of the royal family has, with them being descended from a legendary family from Yselan. Christian is the son of the matriarchal monarch of Thule, Armina-dottir the Konega but just as his father he has no special title or role. He is just a man. (A bit like a princess in a kingdom where only men can be king)
One storyline revolves around his family, the disappearance and reappearance of his father Rajo, and the problems of being a man in a female-led society with as his father calls it the ‘gentle oppression of men’. The Women Council of Thule is extremely conservative, and men are not supposed to have any power because that is dangerous (it is what led to the Great Catastrophe) There also is the problem of Christian being the only child of the Konega-family and being only a boy, so he will be expected to marry a Dottir (a woman from the royal bloodline) to hopefully one day father a girl who can become the new Konega.
The arrival of the Badenfelder and the reaction of both cultures to each other is another big part of the story. Both cultures are completely alien for each other, and they completely get lost in translation even though there is a language they can both use(Brits and Kanadene are still mostly mutually intelligible language). The Badeners try to start with diplomacy and talk about friendship and alliances, but don’t they just want to conquer the whole country? Christian is interested in the other culture, but still skeptical. At a certain point the ‘prince’  as the Badeners see him gets ‘kidnapped’ (actually he joins them willingly, trying to understand them more as he was assigned by his mother) by the commander and asked to show them the inland and he takes them on a crazy hike to the wilderness, where he learns by their reaction what the true (murderous) nature of their culture is.
A third storyline is the impossible love-story between Christian and Thura, a young-captain-in-training and certainly not a Dottir, a fierce, intelligent and unyielding personality with a lot of Inuit blood. She turns out to be one of the most courageous and tactical defenders of her country though, and will play an important role in conquering the Badeners, who are not killed but prevented from ever returning and assimilated in the Thulene society.

Het  Helse Paradijs

The Konega looked straight at Kilian. ‘You are right,’ she spoke. ‘We tried deliberately to kill all of you when it became clear that you didn’t want to abort the invasion attempt. It was you who convinced us of that. We wanted to smother what was left by the hurricane, the rat disease and the swamps in fire and smoke. We had thought out much more natural disasters for you. But it became too much, we couldn’t go on. Pity choked us. It is against our nature to be cruel and ruthless. (P. 271)

In the second book ‘het helse paradijs’ (the infernal paradise) we get more insight in the culture of the Badeners. Kilian Werfel, a young linguist, is summoned by the Egon, the dictator, together with an admiral, a Government Commissioner, and a geologist, to go on a new expedition to Greenland after the disappearance of the Badenfelder 2 years ago. The fleet consists of 5 warships and around 1000 soldiers that takes over the harbor of Kulus and Kilian will have the impossible task to try to connect to an enemy whose new tactic is mostly to completely ignore them.  He’ll also have the misfortune of falling in love with Thulene spokesperson Thura, who is completely unreachable as the fiancée of the Konega-son.
And on top of that none of the leaders of the invasion is ever happy with the messages he needs to carry from the other side, which is that they just have to leave Thule or will be ‘destroyed by Mother Earth’.

The Thulenes led by the Konega and Thura don’t use any conventional warfare, but they are very successful against the Badeners. They move in stealth and stun the invaders whenever they misbehave, to leave them to wake up stripped of weapons and uniforms elsewhere. At a certain point the whole invasion army wakes up in their underwear, robbed of a lot of stuff, with a red mark of a criminal in their face. And that’s just the beginning: the warships get sabotaged and the big march over land to Gothab, the capitol, gets stuck in the middle of nowhere before a blown-up bridge with a ‘city of gold’ just out of reach on the other side, plagued by diseases and natural disasters.

Kilian himself gets more bad luck and is accused of treason after he brings another message from Thura (‘go back to Kulus, you won’t survive the winter here’) to his superiors. He barely escapes alive, and then wanders around as beggar and stranger, marked as a crimnlal  through Thule to end up in a hospital, while the Badener army goes rogue destroying a village and then finds its demise in natural disasters as a reaction.

In the end the second invasion will have a similar outcome as the first one: none of the Badeners will see their homeland again, but this time with a lot of casualties. Assimilating the remaining Badeners into the Thulene culture is much harder this time, but the Konega-family mobilises Kilian, whom they’ve picked up along the way to Gothab and who knows both cultures now as their own mediator to explain the culture to the scattered left-overs of the invasion-army.

Het Gulden Vlies van Thule

Elvira shook her head, rather hopelessly. ‘Lady Thura, please understand! If I go to Gothab, and make myself known as the mediator chosen by the Thulenes… The head-governor will roll over with laughter. He will say ‘child, don’t be silly, go get married, get six children, and that’s how you’ll do a service to the fatherland.’
‘That man couldn’t be that stupid,’ Thura said. (p.178)

The third book ‘het Gulden Vlies van Thule’ (the Golden Fleece of Thule) is set half a century later and is written again from a Badener point of view, but this time the main characters are female. The Badener Empire has moved on from dictatorship to democracy, but is in a lot of problems, which it tries to solve with new colonies overseas. Four coastal Thulene cities including the capital Gothab have been conquered and are under Badener rule, but the colonisation isn’t very successful and the Thulenes are doing endless acts of sabotage while rarely being seen or caught. The Badeners don’t understand anything of the Thulenes, and don’t really try to understand their culture and language, seeing them as just stupid and primitive cowards for them.

The book first follows Elvira, daughter of a  deputy governor. She sees the need to understand the Thulene language and culture, and she even gets help in secret from a Thulene woman to learn it. Her father is sent to join a punitive expedition to the inland where no-one ever returns from when he protests the corruption of the governor, and doesn’t come back. Finally she goes into Thulene country to find him. She meets a district leader who tells her the fate of her father, and meets the Konega-son Tjalk who  hates the Badener who killed half his family, but still brings him to temporary capitol Holtak, known for its expensive vases made with gold-clay to meet Thura, an old woman now but still the fierce leader of the resistance.  She predicts the end of the Badener colonies, and wants her to be a negotiator with the Badener government.

Another storyline follows the three daughters of the new head governor of the added territories of Thule. Being a nobleman of ill fortune he tries to find a new chance for his family in the colonies, which are in bad condition already when he arrives. Unlike his predecessor he is more interested in trade and diplomacy, and sees the importance of learning the language and culture of the native Thulenes, so he orders his daughters to study it.
After a while the three girls will do their own attempt to reach Holtak where the famed vases made of gold-clay originate, to try to make trade possible between Thulenes and Badeners. When they finally reach Holtak they are received by Thura and the Konega, who tells them that friendship is impossible as long as the Thulene cities are occupied, . Together with Elvira they are sent back, and find the capitol in worse state than ever, with rats everywhere and workers on strike. The head governor sends a message to the motherland, and finally a diplomat arrives to talk with the Konega, even though the idea of talking with women is rather ridiculous to him. The cultural misunderstandings are big and the demands of Thura and the Konega-family are high,  but there is one trump that the Thulenes use to buy off the Badeners (one which is hinted at in the title already) to get their country back.

It really is a pity that the books have never been translated. They are very intelligently written, and help one ask questions and see through the nonsense of society.

Some themes will be worth exploring more in future posts.

Peace

Bram

Joshua Harris, unkissed frogs and false promises


So, Joshua Harongekust enris, American Christian celebrity and the guy who wrote ‘I kissed dating goodbye’* is separating from his wife. Which would be nobodies business if he hadn’t been the guy who sold countless copies of a book that promised you a good marriage if you followed his rules.
* ”ongekust en toch geen kikker'”, (unkissed but not a frog) in the Dutch edition.

I’m not an anthropologist, but as far as I know the guy who made the ‘first kiss at the altar’ idea popular in (American) evangelicalism and made a lot of promises about how his (for me as non-US person extremely alien) ideas would lead to good marriages if you’d follow his rules. He also advocated a form of ‘courtship that I’m probably not even able to understand if I try as a European, and had a complementarian bent that has hurt a lot of women an relationships if I can believe the blogposts and FB comments I’ve read over the years.
He also wrote this when he was quite young and before he was married, which isn’t the best idea either.

It seems some people find it funny that he is separating now, which it isn’t. It’s tragic,  ironic even in the most dark cynical way possible. But this has a lot of consequences, he had influences a lot of people. Seems that the promises are not to be trusted if his marriage is over now; and that the book is completely worthless.

Well, he kind of recanted a lot of his ideas already in the last few years.  From Christianity today:

“While I stand by my book’s call to sincerely love others, my thinking has changed significantly in the past twenty years. I no longer agree with its central idea that dating should be avoided. I now think dating can be a healthy part of a person developing relationally and learning the qualities that matter most in a partner,” he said in a statement.

“There are other weaknesses too: in an effort to set a high standard, the book emphasized practices (not dating, not kissing before marriage) and concepts (giving your heart away) that are not in the Bible. In trying to warn people of the potential pitfalls of dating, it instilled fear for some—fear of making mistakes or having their heart broken.

“The book also gave some the impression that a certain methodology of relationships would deliver a happy ever-after ending—a great marriage, a great sex life—even though this is not promised by scripture,” he continued

But he still seems to be so immersed in a very specific interpretation of American Christianity and what the bible says that he can’t see anything in between a very extreme fundamentalism and completely abandoning Christianity.

And I don’t mean to be dismissive, it’s just like from an intellectual standpoint, it actually feels more intellectually honest for me to say I don’t know that I agree with the Bible in general than it is to get it to say these things. And maybe that’s just because I spent so much time in a very conservative environment judging all these more progressive people that I’m now tempted to go past that [and] be like, forget it all.

But it can get to feeling, like, what are you holding onto in Christianity? Why do you need it still? …

Which is a bit concerning but completely unsurprising to me, a lot of the American postfundamentalism I’ve seen is just a negative picture of what it left behind, and has in no way broken free from the toxicity of what it tries to escape. See also On my problematic relationship with American post-fundamentalism…
if you like to see my thought processes about that.

(Yes, there is also a factor that the same ‘Christian’ tradition that gave the extreme purity culture also gave rise to a creepy sex maniac president who is the opposite of everything I can recognise as Christian, let alone the extreme sexual standard of purity culture. That is only crazy cognitive dissonance to me.)

When I wrote a review of ‘ongekust en toch geen kikker’ years ago there were a lot of problematic things, also with his gender role ideas, that I could put aside as ‘American nonsense’, but I doubt people in the US had that luxury. See also my older post Some old critique to ‘true love waits’ and Joshua Harris…)

I never understood what US people meant with ‘courtship’ and I still don’t and I’m not even trying anymore.
Even the whole idea of ‘dating’ itself to descibe a form of relationship as is done in English is still a bit weird to me and, while it’s probably imported from Hollywood now in this part of Europe it’s not the way I would ever have framed a relationship. It is part of a relationship, but to me ‘dating’ says nothing about a relationship. You can have a ‘date’ with anyone for almost any reason. I’ve hung out with female friends one-on-one without it being romantic in any way (I’m an introvert who doesn’t like group settings) and it’s weird to frame a relationship with ‘they are dating’. That can mean almost anything. I’m having a da with my wife sometimes.  I’ve been hanging around and going to the caf or cinema with female friends when I was younger in what some people would interpret as a date but without any romantic element to it, just as friends too.

(What I find extremely creepy is expecting a kiss or even sex on a first date before you even have a steady relationship. Such cultural expectations are just a creepy kind of rape culture, at least I can’t interpret them otherwise. You need more relationship in the most basic sense, friendship, knowing each others mode of communicatio before intimacy can be safe.)

To translate a Flemish expression from my teenage years ‘it’s either on or not on’. (‘aan’ en ‘af’ in Dutch) And when it’s ‘on’ you’re in a relationship, serious or not, the word is even used by children, you can have a date but that’s not what defines a relationship. And if the relationship doesn’t work then you break it off and it’s ‘off’.

I would think that (unless you’re in a literally ‘bandless’ subculture) once you’re having a certain form of intimacy a relationship can be presumed to just be there and needs to be named as such.  And yes, you can date to get to know each other, before and in a relationship, so that’s not a definition of being in a relationship or not. But those last paragraphs were just a linguistic problem I have with the word ‘date’.

(I’m not going in the courtship thing, but the whole ‘ask parents’ thing sounds medieval to me. And it goes against our laws even I think and against the universal human rights declaration to let other people decide with whom you marry.)

To go back to Joshua Harris, I find the whole story very tragic, especially for all the people who trusted his promises and ended up with a broken marriage nonetheless.

So I end with pne more tip: Don’t let young unmarried people whith a lot of theory about relationships but no actual experience lead a whole crowd with their relationship advice that promises a lot and is full of very grave warnings about dangers that might not even be so big. It’s a recipe for disaster.

What do you think?

peace

Bram

See also:
A purity culture I don’t know…

On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and consumer capitalism?

Available now for streaming and download: “We are civilised!?” (the 2019 RPM challenge album)


I am happy to announce the new Bram Cools album ‘We are civilised!?’, a collection of new folksongs, weird rattling rock-ballads, abstract electronic instrumentals, a few notes of crappy grunge-lofi and a completely misguided attempt at folk-electro that almost ended up like disco-pop. Maybe there are even a few seconds in which I do sound poppy.
civilisedfinal
Maybe I’m exagerrating with that last sentence. But check it for yourself. You can stream and download it here on noisetrade, as well as on here my own wix-site. And tell me what you think about it if you like it, or share it with people who might like it.
For more background: In an impulsive moment I decided to take the RPM challenge this year, which means to record a complete album of at least 10 songs or 35 minutes of music within the month of February. I’ve did this once before, in 2007 when I recorded a weird liturgical concept album in more styles than I knew I could play, based partly on old Christian liturgical texts in different styles. The electronic ‘Kyrie’ that features on various collections including ‘I am the Belgian Christian lo-fi scene’ originates there for example.
So now there’s ‘We are civilised!?’, a brandnew collection of music that was born in exactly one month. This year I had no real concept to start with, and thus not that much coherence. But I started with some instrumental tracks (both guitar-based and electronic) and wrote a lot of lyrics, and I’ve put them together. I also added a few older songs that I never managed to finish and record before. (Note that without them I would already have 35 min and 10 minutes) And then the bad luck kicked in when my recording console died so some instrumentals never received their lyrics, and some songs that were written on guitar never got recorded before the end of the month. (They might resurface later though)
Find the other albums on my bandcamp and the experimental feed on soundcloud if you like to hear something else.
That’s all for now.
Peace and love to all of you!
Bram Cools

Women need respect, men need love (3) Men need love, and not just sex…


This is the third part in my ‘Women need respect, men need love’ series (part 2 here), where I try to look at the male side of the whole ‘women need love, men need respect’ mess, which will alo be the longest of the three. (After all, the only perspective I can write from is from that of a straight married man.) And I must say that I’m appalled by how men are described in this kind of discourse, as if we are oversexed animals driven only by a few primitive needs, with no selfcontrol and not really a need for love even.See also for example my post On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and consumer capitalism? from 5 years ago already. Porn and a certain kind of sexist fundamentalism are creepily close actually, and the same dehumanising ideology under porn and hook-up ideology is also present in this kind of funamentalism. The only main difference I can make out is that one side gives in to the animalistic sexuality they see as default, while the other more or less tries to tame it in marriages. But apart from that they’re rather the same, n

From the first paragraph of the ‘love and respect’ book, underlining done by sheila Gregoire

matter how much pretence of being ‘biblical’.

It would be an understatement I felt quite insulted as a man and as a Christian when I read Sheila Gregoires overview of the ‘love and respect’ view of what men want sexually and how they should be ‘respected’  I still feel the same way every time I reread it. Let’s add a shortened version here to refresh:

She honors her husband’s authority in the marriage, allowing him to make the decisions. She does not speak up when she disagrees with him, even if he is being selfish and seriously burdening her.(…)This is true even in cases where he is a workaholic; drinking too much; or having an affair. (…) No matter what, in all of these cases, she regularly gives him sexual release, without any regard for her own feelings, understanding that this is a need that he has, and that he cannot show her love without it. (source)

There’s a lot of toxic things in here, but at this moment there ‘s 3 very dangerous things jumping out for me:(1) erasing communication in a relationship will never do any good, and can only make it worse for both partners (2) the idea that a man feels respected when he’s tread as a despotic narcissist is just beyond alien to me. How you can have an intimate relationship without communication?
But the ultimate creepiness, and the ultimate degradation of the male side in the equation is like I already said (3); the idea that mere ‘sex as release’ is the driving need for men.

And then to say that those views are based on a verse from Paul that says that men need to love their wives as themselves is too much cognitive dissonance for me to handle. Note that Paul uses the verse to correct an asymmetry in gender patterns in his world, not at all to express pop-psychological needs, let alone express an absolute need for men and a desire for women that’s less important as the ‘love and respect’ doctrine seems to teach. I would assume it would be the other way around anyway: Love your wife as yourself is the most important command here, and there’s no way explaining it away if you really strive to be ‘biblical’. But alas; I have given up believing that US fundamentalists care one inch about being biblical though, so I’m not surprised anymore by this butchering of scripture, although it saddens me a lot to see how this kind of thinking can vaccinate couples against deep intimacy. Which is a very hideous thing!

Yes, no one can deny that in a way men need respect (as all people do), but I’ve already there is no actual respect in being treated as an entitled narcissist. Gender is irrelevant even, all people need basic respect, and all relationships need mutuality in that, especially if we’re speaking about an intimate relationship. Let’s also remark again that there is absolutely no respect in  not being communicated to.

Now let’s take this overview of what the ‘love and respect’ doctrine teaches about men and their ‘need for sex’:

Men need physical release. They experience this as respect. If you don’t give it to them, they will be tempted to have affairs or to ogle other women.
Sheila Gregoire summarising ‘love and respect’

This kind of thinking might come from a man who wants to excuse his own weaknesses, but still is extremely denigrating and dehumanising to men. Why does the worst misandry always come from men who claim to defend their own gender? Yes, men desire sexual release among other things, but we are humans, not animal slaves to our bodies, and we certainly will survive without ‘getting release’. Men can and should have selfcontrol. That’s what the bible tells us too. That’s what I was told as a teenager as one of the reasons why having no premarital sex is a good idea: it’s a training in selfcontrol, and even within marriage there will be times that there is no sex. And a man is able to survive that, and love his wife. And still have other forms of intimacy with her.

It’s also nonsense to say that mere ‘physical release’ is the reason of most affairs. Most men are looking for something that’s missing in their relationship. Often even love and being understood and stuff like that.

The ‘men just need sex’ trope, combined with the myth of the absence of male selfcontrol is not just insulting, but it’s also very destructive for men as well as for their relationships when they start to believe that crap, making them aim for much less than they could and should be. Which isn’t only bad for them, but also for their lovers to, who deserve much better.

But we probably shouldn’t be surprised that some people think this way: it’s the underpinnings of the modern Western porn industry, basic individualistic consumerism, and our human psychology often works with self-fulfilling prophecies: strong beliefs of not being able to do something will very often manifest themselves and be affirmed. It’s bad enough that certain corners of the non-Christian world sell us this nonsense to get people hooked in their web of consumerist screwed-upness, but I expect more from Christians than a complete disbelief in male selfcontrol, and a higher view of what men expect from sex and relationships too.

Both men and women deserve better.

But yes, the male body desires sexual release. (Just as women have a sex drive too by the way) And yet that doesn’t mean that every sexual release as such will actually satisfy or fulfil us in any way. Or that a man always needs to get everything a body asks for. We’re not simple bodily animals. My body also wants sleep at moments that I can’t get it, and more food than is good for me. Not listening to your bodies needs is what makes us human. And just treating sex as mere release is just masturbation, and adding a human partner will not make much difference for that in a way. Except that we use another human being, that we are commanded to love as ourselves according to the bible verse behind the ‘love and respect’ logic to get that physical release.

It makes me feel sad and lonely that this is what people think of sex, even within marriage.  Or of sex at all. If that would be all there was to it I would choose a life of celibacy, and pray to God to make me asexual. Or become one of those people who think sex is indeed by definition dirty, and always a sin and a weakness.

I’d even say that the mere idea that anyone would feel respected by getting sex-as-mere-release from a partner that doesn’t even want it without any actual emotional connection is beyond creepy. It’s a recipe for marital rape even, which I suppose to be punishable by law in any civilised modern country. Any man who’s content with that has no clue what intimacy is.

If that is really what a Christian book about marriage teaches, something is beyond wrong, antichrist even.

But it’s also no wonder that a man who has such a low view of sex, which is affirmed by his experience, might have no qualms with exchanging the source of the ‘relief’ with another one, be it porn, or maybe an affair in which more than this approach to sex is explored or the humanity that the marriage is vaccinated to by this destructive doctrine is sought back.

Because yes, as is very evident, men still need love. We’re as human as women and children are, and don’t differ much from them. Only the worst psychopath who tragically doesn’t have all of his humanity together might not. And while our body might desire sexual release, that is only a small part of the story, and probably one of our desires that is easiest put aside, or transformed into something else.

As Shane Claiborne says:

If we are able to have a healthier understanding of sexuality and to celebrate singleness as well as marriage and family, then we can transcend some of this. One of my mentors is a celibate monk, and he says we can live without sex but we can’t live without love. And there are a lot of people who have a lot of sex and never experience love, and people who never have sex [but] have deep experiences of intimacy and love. (the irresistible revolution)

Everybody needs love.
It’s much more basic than needing sex. And more destructive if we don’t get it.

The big problem is this whole ‘all we need is sex’ stuff. It can never satisfy. It empties sex of meaning and make sex itself more unsatisfying, which is quite ironic when you have put all your hope for fulfilment in sex.

You won’t get any fulfilment, but you will be told that’s all there is.

And this mess is supposed to be male chauvinism… It’s a good recipe for men making themselves worse than they could be, more sinful, and having terrible loveless sex-lives.

If that isn’t beyond sad?

what do you think?

peace

Bram

Good Saint Nathanael – Hide No Truth (album review)


I think on our best days maybe for even just a few seconds or minutes we all have, saintly actions and so for me saying, this project’s good saint Nathanael, I’m aspiring to have more of those, good moments where I treat my, my fellow man really well, and less like time where it’s just focused about me. (album trailer)

(4.5/5 stars)
(Nederlandse versie hier) I haven’t been following new music lately as much as I did when I was younger, but sometimes there still  is new music that I’m rather exited about. And today I’m very happy to announce the release of ‘Hide No Truth’ by Good Saint Nathanael, of which the burned CD hasn’t left my CD-player this week I think. (I was lucky to have a preview copy for this review!) It’s a remarkable and intriguing album with very quiet folk-based music but not at all easy listening nonetheless. I’m sometimes reminded of what an acoustic-based beck or the eels could record when they forget a rhythm section, or maybe a bit of Bonny ‘Prince’ Billy who plays the later dark Johnny Cash repertoire, with even echoes of a more inspired Daniel Johnston or a completely deconstructed mewithoutyou. But maybe all the name-dropping is just silly. In a just world this would become a reference album in the near future for this kind of music. And if you want to make sense of those descriptions, it’s better to just check out the singles Lightning,  Everything that’s lost and better.

 

 

So who is this guy? Good Saint Nathanael is the new project of Nate Allen, who is probably mostly known from ‘Destroy Nate Allen’, a fun folkband with DIY punk energy that discovered on myspace ages ago, in another world that was a lot simpler and full of wondrous new unknown and exiting obscure music. While I still feel the spirit of that world in the music of Good Saint Nathanael-something I often miss in todays musical landscape-, both projects are quite different in output,  with Good Saint Nathanael being a lot more mature and introspective, as well as very subtle and deep both musically and lyrically.

Basically the album consists of nine dark and rather minimalistic folksongs based on a skeleton of vocals and folk guitar, arranged with varying instruments (ranging from ‘broken tape noise’ to a harp) that create very interesting atmospheric soundscapes in the background. Nate Allen disarms  the listener with the brutal honesty of his haunting voice, and most of the songs succeed fully in their ambitions without anything even remotely sounding  like a rhythm section anywhere on the same continent. That alone can probably be seen as quite an accomplishment in 2019.

Content-wise the whole album is one of spiritual struggle, traumas resulting from religious abuse, and hope and faith in spite of all the darkness, all mingled into each other and often described very poetically but with a brutal honesty that might blow some sensitive souls off their socks.  While others would probably have made a break-up album about their faith this is certainly not a deconversion album like Derek Webb’s fingers crossed (see my review for that one here).  So instead of an escapist and self-destructive “women and whiskey are persuasive at making me forget you” this one always returns to hope and light, no matter how frail,  ending with the open-ended certainty that

Yes I think we can do better, a whole lot better, a whole lot better than this
Yes I think we can do better, treat the whole world better than this (better)

Which is something much-needed in these days. Hope, and a journey of falling and standing up again with some mildness for when we fall is one the things this world might need the most even right now! And when it’s packaged in such beautiful music it’s even better…

Outside it’s freezing when I write this, although the promised snow hasn’t fallen yet. I’m working on my laptop while listening to ‘hide no truth and for a moment everything fits perfectly: a good Belgian trappist beer, the quietness of the winter night, and music, honest and vulnerable. This is how enjoying music should happen!

Good Saint Nathanael can be found here:
website(with all kind of links for download and streaming)
See also the album mini-trailer
Read also this interview

Disclaimer: I was indeed given an electronic copy of this album for writing a review, but all the enthusiasm is purely my own.

Women need respect, men need love (2): Women need respect!


From the first paragraph of the ‘love and respect’ book, underlining done by sheila Gregoire

In part 1 of this series I reacted against the slogan ‘women need love, men need respect’ that seems a US import slogan linked to bad marriage advice that is rather pervasive in certain evangelical circles, with some pop-psychological weirdness attached to it.

I am well aware that it should be more than obvious that all people, of all genders need both love and respect, in and out of marriage relationships. There should be no question about that. And actually, all that I’m saying here should just be common sense. I’m rather shocked that it isn’t for some people. But as my title indicates,  I strongly feel that it might good to emphasise, in our time and culture, that women really need respect and men really need love too.

I’ve already touched upon in my last post that the original version of the saying has been abused and made into an ideology that has been destructive for vulnerable marriages. The series on Sheila Gregoires blog from last week had some very extreme examples of that. (Watch out, disturbing stories there)
Yes, it’s true that normal people with healthy relationship skills and enough love and respect probably would just take a message of ‘don’t be selfish’ from the book, as Sheila already said in her post, but there’s still a poison in the book, and it seems also in similar ‘Christian marriage books’ that focus on the supposed needs of the man which are much more important that those of the wife. Not everybody gets bitten when they meet an European adder, and because a healthy person usually won’t die when bitten, that we need to encourage all people to go play with adders, is it?

I50861956_342361363022927_3993856368762159104_nt’s quite clear if you actually read the verse that the whole theory is built on that ‘psychological needs’ are not what Paul had in mind in Ephesians 5:33, and none of the abuse that the book brought haver happened if men would actually love their wife as they love themselves, as that verse also very clearly says. Which is a clear command, and not a hint about pop-psychological needs.

The poison is very clear if we follow Sheilas series (1 2 3 4), and damaging for both sexes: the advice of unconditional respect for the man can lead to bad relationships and ruined marriages.
Which by the way means that on the other side of each of these stories the teaching has turned a man into someone who isn’t even able to be in a healthy relationship, and -very ironically since we’re speaking about supposedly Christian teaching here-, a bigger sinner than he should and could have been, led astray from Christlikeness and turned into the likeness and image of a toxic ‘manliness’ that is in certain aspects the opposite of how Christ wants us to grow. Entitled narcissism is a good way to create hell here on Earth, both for yourself and the people closest to you. But we will not focus on the the male side here, which will be for a next post.

So let’s go back to the title: Women need respect!

Yes, I know: It’s very weird and discouraging that such a thing even needs to be said. Someone once said that feminism is the radical idea that women are human, and the sad thing is that we still need to hear that in Western society of the 21st century sometimes. Porn culture and male-dominated sexism are still pervasive in our world, turning the sexes against each other. And this often means that even the basic respect of treating the other like a person is lacking.
As a Christian we should never join this toxic tendency, for it is pure antichrist toxicity. Jesus Himself treated everyone as a person, and showed a lot of respect for all kinds of people who were often not treated as a full person in his own culture and society. Sadly this indeed included women too in his world, as it sometimes does today. But he didn’t bother with those societal patterns at all and broke all of the rules whenever they were in conflict with ‘love your neighbour’.

Think for example of the Samaritan woman in John 4, with whom a lot of barriers existed: Men didn’t talk to women, Jews didn’t talk to Samaritans, and so on. Jesus doesn’t bother at all with these things. Neither did he bother with those petty restrictions he when Mary of Bethany breaks all societal patterns  in which only men could listen to a rabbi. Or when they bring the woman caught in adultery before him.
Jesus certainly didn’t find the idea that ‘women are human’ a radical idea, even though some of the people around him might have been shocked by his inclusion of women as much as with his inclusion of both the oppressed and outcasts like the Samaritans and chronically ill, as well as the oppressors -who also were outcasts- in the form of the Roman soldiers. But his friendships with women were very remarkable for his time and culture, especially the gospel of Luke was quite scandalous in that regard!

All of this is basic biblical knowledge. If we are to call ourselves Christians this means that any societal rule that prevents us from respecting others made in the Divine Image should be dismissed. I don’t even need to refer to my own adherence to Christianity though, since this is a very basic form of humanism that should be common sense to all of us moderns, even though it still might be revolutionary for some if I look around. The sad truth is still  that in a lot of circumstances a lot of women (among other humans) do not get the basic respect they deserve as human beings even. This always is an injustice that should be countered!

Every human being, including every woman, needs to be seen as a fellow Image of God. None of them (regardless even of how they present themselves to us, not even a sexy model in an ad) should ever be treated as a mere sex object that is enjoyed and preyed on as such in porn culture, and seen as an evil temptation to be avoided in certain religious circles. Certainly both are two versions of the same evil, and and as I said before in other posts: one of the best remedies is simply friendship. Personally I have no idea how a marriage or sexual relationship in general would even be possible without friendship at all. But friendship should be our basic impulse towards every person of the other sex that we meet. If we would do that the respect I’m speaking of here would always be present!

And so it still needs to be said: Women need respect!

So how much more important is this in a monogamous partnership that is supposed to be based on love as our Western marriages are? It’s rather obvious that i f we don’t give someone the basic respect as a person that ‘love’ won’t even be an option, let alone loving someone as yourself as Paul says in the verse that the ‘love and respect’ stuff is based on.

If you can’t treat someone as a person you have no business being with them. You will only hurt them, and  respect is something that is very easily naturally reciprocated in a healthy relationship but also often dies when it isn’t… I keep on saying things that should be entirely obvious,  but any relationship needs respect from two sides, otherwise it can and should not go very deep. And a relationship that goes so deep as a marriage does cannot survive in a meaningful without mutual respect, and love is impossible without it.

It doesn’t matter what the gender of a person is, we all need to be treated as a person especially by our life partner.  And the opposite of respect is one of the most destructive things in a relationship. Contempt is one of the most dangerous things that can be added to a relationship, and one of the most sure ways to kill either the love or the whole marriage.

And while I’m writing all of this I still have a nagging voice that says. ‘this is just too obvious to write down’. But when I read stuff like what I’ve read last week on Shelia Gregoire’s blog, or discussions in certain Facebook groups, or thinkabout certain relationships I’ve seen go to ruin in my live I fear that I’m naive.

It needs to be said again and again.
It needs to be shown to the world.
It needs to be shown to the church too I’m afraid!
It needs to be live out and be a light.
We need to be a friend who shows respect!
We need to crush all forms of dehumanisation!
Women need respect!
All people do!

So what do you think?

peace

Bram