Last night I was thinking about the controversies surrounding “Movember” – which we are currently in, if you haven’t noticed. (And if you haven’t noticed, that might explain a few things you’re currently seeing in the streets.) People have asked if it’s the male equivalent of “pink-washing”, bringing with it the kind of problems which writers like Barbara Ehrenreich have identified in the “pinkification” of breast cancer. Or whether it’s helpful to base a charity campaign on the visibility and extent of secondary sexual characteristics. Or indeed whether signs which have been so securely established representing particular kinds of masculinity can be so easily rewritten for a good cause during this month, pointing to the frequency with which November moustaches garner the response “Lol, gay!” or “70s porn star!”
Thinking about all this, I suddenly remembered a text which seems to have some bearing on the question. It has been the subject of some controversy in the past: in fact, when I looked it up to be sure of the wording, I found commentators had described its doctrine as “demonic” and “heretical”. But I think we may have found ourselves in a situation to which it speaks clearly and unambiguously. So here goes:
Therefore if any man swear by ‘Tache and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is ‘Tache whom he serves and by ‘Tache his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?
So I think that pretty much clears that up…