On the virtue of modesty

Modesty is too often a topic fraught with unnecessary anger and defensiveness. I was listening to a fascinating series on modesty by Fr. Rippeger, posted by Sensus Fidelium (who posts to both youtube and bitchute). It was fascinating because it did not stay on mere dress, but addressed the roots of modesty as well as its expressions outside of clothing in behaviour and speech. In behaviour, modesty was naturally portrayed in terms of moderation and courtesy. Attention seeking behaviour is obviously immodest, but what does that look like?
Dance can be modest—he pointed out how certain types of ballroom and folk dancing can actually help teach men and women how to comport themselves well with each other and as composed and graceful humans, whereas modern dance was decried for its immodest self-expression and provocativeness.
Vulgar speech was also presented as transgressing modesty, while a distinction was observed from the profane and the vulgar. It seemed that while both were to be avoided, particularly in mixed company, the profane was absolutely to be avoided. Again, it seems a straightforward matter—if you are a believer in God, you should want to honour Him; swearing or otherwise using His names apart from talking to or about Him is disrespectful and breaks the command. Moderation came up in the topic of speech, one can talk to much.
When Fr. Ripperger did talk about clothing he addressed it from a rather nuanced view, I thought. He took into account current custom, the inherent distinctions between men and women, the different purposes of dressing between men and women as a result of that, as well as the simple question of what does the clothing reveal. One distinction to be made in that last was “does it reveal more of the body or more of the person?” which distinction I have heard before. Fr. Ripperger did talk about how the clothes also affect mannerisms, posture, and behaviour, which I have heard less noted. Most controversially, while noting that the wearing of pants by women is not inherently sinful now, he did note that dresses and skirts are inherently more feminine, therefor modest skirts and dresses ought to be preferred to pants for women. Similarly, since care to attractive appearance is naturally more feminine, he described most jewelry, makeup, and focus on clothing and style for personal statement in men to be immodest. Fr. Ripperger sees men’s dress as being more about function: it is for your job, it shows what you do, it demonstrates externally your virtue (I was not entirely clear on his use of that term, but he did note things like the appropriateness of a wedding ring or a pectoral cross, jewelry that signifies a man’s position, as opposed to mere decorations). Even with the observations about things like makeup being inappropriate for men ordinarily, he did observe the appropriate use in acting or even to cover or make less distracting some physical deformity. The key seemed to be on the use of makeup for women, it should enhance what is already present and should not be done in order to draw attention to yourself, and for men and women it might be used to cover something that otherwise would be excessively attention getting. Moderation, moderation, moderation, and a respect for people around you.
Something that was striking down in the comments: While there were those who simply commented on this point or that with maybe further observations or questions and those who just left thank you notes, there were also some other responses. Fr. Ripperger noted various times that women were more naturally tender or sensitive than men. A woman objected to that adding the word, “weak”.
 There were also comments that said how “out-of-touch” people think the father is, sometimes accusing him of calling things sin (like women wearing pants) even while he made it clear that he does not in general consider it sinful, just not as excellent as wearing modest dresses. Some also simply went off topic to ask why he didn’t address other issues first. On the other hand, during one talk, there was a lady who was asking things like, “Isn’t wearing makeup sinful?” seeming in general to want to put the “Sin” sticker on things that don’t necessarily deserve it.
All told, they were an interesting set of lectures and homilies.

A Woman who communicated

        Arrival is about so much more than aliens coming to earth and a linguistics professor and a physicist working with their teams to try to communicate. It is pretty amazing.

So, Emily was probably going to pick this movie that none of us had watched and I blanked out on that bit of info and watched it on my own before we watched it together. It is a movie well worth a re-watch. In a way, it is like watching 6th Sense over again, I saw things from a different perspective having seen the ending, and consequently, I saw a lot more of what was going on. For that reason, I am not going to tell many details, I will however say that this shows an amazing development in the main lady, from desolate to really consciously living. She becomes captivating.

It is a quiet sort of movie; I recall very little vulgar or offensive language; the violence is second hand; and there is no excessive sensuality at all. What humor is present is quiet. The colors are quiet, often blue-toned, lending to a sort of melancholy feel. There were a few moments when the music seemed a bit heavy handed, but I can kind of understand why they would play those sounds when they did—thematically. It still drove me out of the scene a little. Speaking of scene, the filmography was beautiful. I loved the use of clouds and wind on the one hand and TV and intercom screens on the other.

On the writing, I loved how minor characters still felt like living people; they made good use of background and side interactions. One character speaks pretty dismissively of a lot of the people at the camp that is set up near the alien shell in Montana. It seems as though maybe the writer was not quite so dismissive. Rather in contrast to that is the attitude of the colonel who fetches the civilians who are helping out. He tells Ian, the physicist, and Louise, the linguist, after they started sparring a little over the importance of math versus language, that “That is why you're both here. And I'll get your coffee.” He seemed like he would be one of those heroes that nobody knows about; he just goes and does his best to do whatever job he has with the least amount of fuss and fewest casualties possible.

For Louise's part, she is pretty intense as she gets into this figuring out the aliens thing keeping in mind the end goal. It was interesting to watch that, especially as a teacher interested in languages. One of her first, though not the first, break-through moments with the aliens comes when she removes some of her protective gear and identifies herself with her name instead of just the generic “human” identifier. That really made the guys backing them up nervous-- “Do we abort?” While most were concerned about security, potential dangers, the aliens as potential threat, Louise saw them as beings with which to communicate, potential teachers, even. She personalized the communication, and that is what started the breakthrough to be able to understand the aliens.

Like I said, I do not want to give away to much about the plot, so I will leave you with those tid-bits and one more: the aliens are named Abbot and Costello.

Conformity in the "Mona Lisa Smile"

An art teacher from California goes a prestigious women's college on the East coast only to discover that it is a glorified finishing school.  This is after she discovered that her class already knew the material and at least a few of them did not consider her UCLA degree worthy of respect. Oh, yeah, the administration and some of the teachers are not fond of her either.  She it was with whom they were left when the preferred candidate took a job at Brown.

As the class already knew the names of the pieces of art along with their artists and the textbook described significance of each one, Catherine Watson decides to ask them “What is art?”  She presents them with modern pieces starting with the “Carcass” and asking, “Is this art?” Her next piece, though, is of a lamb on a field of green, primitive in style, very childish. The girls say that they suppose it must be art because it is being presented.  The teacher says that one person even identified it as a masterpiece. That person was her mother. She had painted it as a child. As she identifies the “critic”, the next slide is a photograph of her mother. She asks the students to consider whether the photograph is art.  They are more cautious now, and one half scoffs that it is “just a snapshot.” She asks them, “If I were to tell you that it was taken by *important name*, would that make a difference?” She sets a new goal for the class; they are going to study the question of what makes art art, who gets to say? They are also going to look at modern works.

One of the most powerful scenes in that regard comes when she takes them on a field trip to a museum or art gallery, but they do not go through the main halls. They go “backstage”, so to speak, where the artifacts are being brought in and unwrapped. There they are when this great, big crate is brought in. It could easily be a wall. They loosen a whole side of it, which then appears to be a sideways lid which crashes down to reveal a paint splattered canvas, immediately recognizable as by Pollock. The thing is, it is so massive. Miss Watson walks up to it with face alight. It dwarfs her. Her assignment to them is to consider the painting. She does not ask for a paper for this one, just for them to consider it. The view dips in close so we can see the textures and the depth of the paint, it takes on an emotional quality--the colors in soft lavender and gray over soft crimsons almost evoke a sunrise.

On the personal side, though, the stories take a devastating turn.  One could receive the impression that Miss Watson came here to clear her mind concerning a somewhat dominating lover.  The lady who runs the house where she is boarding is a very desolate woman whose fiancée left during the war, but stayed away to marry someone else. She never moved on. The other lady in the house is the school nurse, clearly indicated to have been had a female companion. She provides birth control for the students and is fired when she will not publicly apologize and promise to not continue doing so.  

Among the students, Betty Warren is a young woman groomed to be manipulative and controlling by her mother. She has a venomous tongue. She marries, her husband is unfaithful, and she lashes out at people close to her.  Joan is her best friend. Joan had an interest in going to law school, applied and was accepted to Yale, but she chooses to marry her boyfriend/lover and go with him to Pennsylvania.  She gives a powerful defense of choosing motherhood that is undercut by the way the scene is set up. Giselle is the bad-girl-with-the-heart-of-gold. She carries on two different affairs in the film, not concurrently, one with a teacher the other with an older, married man.  She flirts with everybody and is very affectionate, and very lost. Her father had abandoned her mother and her when she was young. She is the one through whom it is revealed that the nurse is distributing birth control. Then there is Connie. Connie is regularly put down by Betty and thinks she is not attractive.  She is attentive to others’ needs and is genuinely funny. One of my favorite lines comes from her. A young man was dancing with her and talked about how his mother said his life was opening up in front of him, just on the horizon. She says that he should tell her, “that the horizon is an imaginary line which always recedes as one approaches it.”  The dance being over she says good bye, but he asks if she is brushing him off politely. She thought he was just doing a favor in dancing with her, but he really wanted to dance with her. So they dance some more. Their story, even with a misunderstanding thrown in due to his cowardice and Kirsten’s maliciousness, is sweet.

Meanwhile, Miss Watson carries on an affair with the Italian teacher after breaking up with her former lover who was about to railroad her into marriage.  Her one condition to the Italian teacher is that he not carry on relations with students. She leaves that situation after she discovers that he has been living a lie. He had never actually left the states during the war, but because he knew Italian and did not correct people's false assumptions, he had the reputation of having served in Italy with distinction.

When it comes down to basics, the women are almost all of them either excessively domineering or excessively desolate and needy, and the men are almost all passive, with the exception of a couple of controlling and jealous men.  It was pitiful. Surely, there are good men and women in the world, even in the late 50’s in academia, but where are they? Lost.

I did enjoy the movie, and I appreciated the main character, though she seemed confused in her personal life.  The overarching message of “question everything, because tradition and traditional constraints are suspect at best and likely evil” combined with self-determination is not what we need to hear today.  We are perhaps too aware of 50’s conformity and lack an awareness of today's form of ironic conformity. “To question is the answer” is almost taken for a truism. Self-determination has been radicalized to accept people’s self identity even if that identity is delusional.  The message of the movie is generally accepted as truth with little questioning. And, oh, the pressure to conform!

The thing is to live a considered life, which is why I hated that they made Joan’s defense of her decision seem hollow.  She points out that Miss Watson had encouraged them to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Joan may want to study law, but she wanted to be a wife and a mother even more.  She also observes that being a wife and a mother did not make a woman less intelligent. She had learned much and was grateful for her education, but this was what she decided she wanted--to get married and raise a family.  She was not entering it blindly. In all, I think she could have been one of the better examples of femininity, but it seemed as though the directors wanted the viewer to think she was cutting off a part of who she was, rather than that she was simply choosing among different good options.  They, with Miss Watson, wanted her to take it all--Yale, career, marriage, family--and but for her boyfriend, they tell us, she could have. Maybe they are right about Joan, but maybe a woman can also have a highly satisfying and happy life as a wife and mother. Maybe a human can have a better, more whole life by giving up some dreams in order to live out the dreams they most desire.

Captivating women

I was trying to find a good movie that portrayed a positive femininity. I was not having good success and was actually being increasingly irritated by the search results. Sexy and “badass” came up a lot. Feminist themes and godly masculinity showed up as well. I really wanted a movie I had not seen that dealt with women in a respectful and captivating manner. I did not want a Kill Bill nor a My Best Friend’s Wedding kind of movie.  Joan of Arc? Sure, depending on the version. Mother Theresa? Yes. A Little Princess? Totally--except it is actually a mini-series that would last 6 hours, and  we were actually supposed to pick movies not mini-series.  

I decided ultimately to pick a movie we had at home--Nausicaa:Valley of the Winds.  This was lovely.  She displays compassion and courage. She views the world which holds much terror with an eye for beauty.In contrast there is the beautiful but bitter Kushana of the Tolmekians, who sees things through the lens of power and fear.  

Nausicaa is introduced as she is out adventuring in the toxic jungle looking for ohm shell and collecting spores.  She leaves the jungle only to discover  Lord Yupa being chased by an angry insect, which she stuns, charms, and sends back to the forest from the vantage of her glider.  Back in the village it is clear she is well loved and respected by her people and that she loves and cares for them.  

When the village is invaded by the Tolmekians, who could have simply peacefully retrieved their nasty giant embryo and wrecked ship, the king is killed.  Nausicaa initially went into a rage and killed and injured a few soldiers before being stopped by Lord Yupa, who encouraged her to hold on for the sake of her people.  She was then taken as a hostage, but spent her last moments encouraging a few little girls who were sad to see her go.  

Kushana is imperious.  She planned to grow the giant in the valley and rule herself from there. While taking the hostages back to Tolmekia, however, they were attacked by a lone Pegite fighter.  

The airships were demolished by the zipping little craft, that is itself taken down.  Nausicaa and the other hostages, along with Kushana survive.  Nausicaa and one of her people actually save Kushana, not that she displayed any subsequent gratitude.  The Pegite fighter, Asbel, also survived the crash, but nearly did not survive the insects.  After stopping Kushana from bringing angry ohm down on them, Nausicaa sent her men and Kushana off to wait above the forest for one hour while she attempted to rescue the Pegite.  
She did rescue him from the immediate danger of giant insects or falling to his death, but then the glider was wrecked by the cutting tail of an insect whose head they had just narrowly evaded. They crash landed, this time in what would appear to be quicksand. 

Nausicaa was knocked unconscious in the crash, but when she revived in the subterranean caverns she discovers what Asbel, the Pegite fighter/prince, has been delighting in already--the air is safe to breath and the water is clean. They have time to repair the glider and rest in safety before continuing on their journey. 
They must get Asbel back to his people and Nausicaa back to her valley, and maybe somehow find a way to stop the devastation of war that bringing a giant warrior back could cause.

Throughout the story you see her courage and compassion, but I won’t tell the end; you should go watch it.  You could not just replace her with a man and have the same story.  So, Nausicaa:Valley of the Wind--it is an excellent adventure story that also has an excellent female role model. 

(It also has lovely music which is likely to become stuck in your head :)