What's the opposite of a fundamentalist?
On the Barbie movie, nuance, and not becoming the thing I hate
I liked the Barbie movie. Allan* made me laugh. I love Ryan Gosling in anything. I thought Kate McKinnon’s portrayal of a janky Barbie (we all had one) was on-point. Who doesn’t want to stare at Margot Robbie for two hours? And yes, I teared up at America Ferrera’s monologue - it does feel impossible to be a woman sometimes.
And yet, there were moments in the film where the metaphor lost me. Like, wait: are we saying the Supreme Court should be made up solely of women? What was happening there with Ken at the end? Are we allowed to be in love? To need each other? (And also, why don’t we talk more about pregnant Midge basically getting written out of the plot? Or wait - literally just had this thought: was pregnant Midge being left out the entire point?!)**
My sensitive, romantic 12-year-old son*** hates that line in Taylor Swift’s Blank Space where she says “Boys only want love if it’s torture.”
“That’s not really fair,” he said in the car the other day. I agreed, and we talked about hyperbole, about using exaggeration to make a point. And then somehow that conversation morphed into sexism and then into the pendulum swing that often happens when our eyes are opened to injustice. The way - sometimes - when we see what we’ve done wrong and we want to do better, we have a tendency to overcorrect.
I briefly followed a woman on Instagram who was trying her hand at poetry. The mother of daughters, one day she posted a poem she’d written about (what she believed) “little boys are taught” (which wasn’t at all what my little boys are being taught, or what most little boys I know are being taught), compared with what “little girls are taught.” The final line was something like: “I’m cheering for the girls.”
And herein lies the problem.
When we answer inequality in one direction with inequality in the opposite direction, we end up making false adversaries of each other. This might seem like a weird thing for a woman who’s pretty adamant about the evil of the patriarchy to say, but…the future isn’t female. The future isn’t male, either.
The future is all of us, together.
I can speak to sexism because I’m a woman, but honestly, pick your favourite injustice and apply the same logic.
When we’ve been wronged, like many of us have - when we’ve been silenced and devalued, abused and oppressed - as much as we might thirst for revenge: revenge won’t save us.
When I first started pulling at the thread of my doubt surrounding my very specific brand of religion a few years ago, my greatest fear was that I’d be alone. That my marriage would crumble (it didn’t). That all my friendships would end (the good ones are still here). That in the silence, in my fear and uncertainty and pain, I’d realise no one, nothing was holding me. (I didn’t.)
On this side, my greatest fear has become something else: I fear I’ll become what I hate. There’s nothing wrong with feeling angry. I feel angry often. But if I, in reaction to my anger, counter my old certainty about my rightness with new certainty about my rightness; if I swing like a pendulum from militant conservative/Christian/pro-Life/complementarian _________ (fill in the blank) to militant progressive/exvangelical/pro-choice/egalitarian/______ (fill in the blank), I haven’t moved forward or grown into something new. I’m the same thing, just backwards.
Here’s a joke I wrote while thinking about this stuff in the car the other day:
Q: What’s the opposite of a fundamentalist?
A: A fundamentalist.
Ba-dum-chhhh.
I don’t want to trade in my old rigid beliefs for new rigid beliefs. Gross. I want, as my friend Jane says, to “upgrade my operating system”. In his book, Immortal Diamond (which is all about the search for the True Self, which, if you’ve been around here for a little while, you know is something I really love to talk about), Richard Rohr talks about the “mean green” level.
Some who use the language of integral theory or “spiral dynamics” call it the “mean green” level: these are the people who are just smart enough to dismiss everybody below them as stupid and everybody above them as falsely spiritual. A little bit of enlightenment is a very dangerous thing. I have seen it in myself, in many clergy, and especially in the arrogance of many academics, early feminists, and loners who can never trustfully belong to any group and seem to believe they have the only correct ideas. Their “smartness” makes them also mean or arrogant, and we intuitively know this should not be true.
I get it, man. When we realise we’ve been wrong, and suddenly find a little enlightenment, it is unbelievably tempting to swing the opposite direction and post ourselves up in the other camp. Honestly, I actually wonder if doing so is a necessary part of the process - like, maybe we do have to just go full anti-whatever-we-were-before for a little while. But we can’t stay there. No one wins by getting their own back; we only win when all of us win. A government with representation for everyone. A big enough picture of God to envelop us all. A home where we all feel safe.
I have a guiding belief that, when presented with two options at opposite ends of a spectrum, 99% of the time, the Truth actually lies somewhere between those two poles. That kind of thing doesn’t usually go viral. No one’s storming the capital with poster board reading “Make Nuance Great Again!” (although I’m up for it if you are).
But there is an invitation here for all of us: in a world that seems increasingly polarised, can we choose something different? When offered the choice between two opposite sides, can we pause, take a breath, and refuse to become adversaries****? Can we invite Barbie and Ken to the party? Can we consider a third way?
xx
Faith
*I repeatedly got a question about him wrong in the NY Times mini-crossword the other day because I have never seen “Allan” spelled that way.
**Even talking about the Barbie movie this way seems to prove my point: there are more options than “THE BEST FILM I’VE EVER SEEN OMG” or “This movie is everything that’s wrong with society and you’re all going to hell.”
***Accepting applications for arranged marriages with cool in-laws who preferably own a lake house.
****(also, let’s take a moment and consider who benefits from our becoming adversaries.)
What I’m Reading:
Finished Lessons in Chemistry! Liked it a lot, maybe partly because, even though it's very popular, someone I respect told me they “hated it”, so my expectations were low. But I was pleasantly surprised. Now reading Immortal Diamond (mentioned above) by Richard Rohr in the early mornings, which is when I generally read more spiritual books. Evenings are for page-turning fiction, and I haven’t started anything new yet - recommendations welcome!
What I’m Listening To:
Still Noah Kahan because I am a sad person, but also now bingeing Bailen because I just bought tickets to see them in London Monday night! (ps this music video is hilarious.)
What I’m Writing:
I have a deadline tomorrow for a piece I’m writing about Jacquie, my 77-year-old friend who swims in the river with me all summer, and how becoming friends with someone 36 years older than me has been good for my soul.
Make Nuance Great Again! Would buy that t-shirt
That joke is beautiful. Copyright it now. Tell it everywhere.