Female Role Models

I was the seventh of eight children, but my closest-in-age sister was five years older.  So, for all playing-pretend purposes, I was the only girl.  I remember playing Star Wars with my brothers - who were 7, 13, and 15 to my 11.  They had a wealth of characters to choose from.  I got one choice, Princess Leia.  The only other female in that movie was Aunt Beru and she died!  Leia was cool, but wanted some options.  The later movies didn't help, either, as the new characters were all male.  I was a girl, I had to be a female character.  If we played Superheroes, I had to be Wonder Woman. Star Trek, I got to be either Uhura or Nurse Chapel.  I did get to play at "Charlie's Angels" but only when the neighbor girls came over.  Some of my earliest writing was, for all intents and purposes, Fan Fiction.  With lots of girl characters.  So I'd have options when playing with my brothers.

Granted, my world was small.  My mother had very strange idea about what TV shows and movies were okay for her kids... I remember seeing "Porky's" with her, but not being allowed to watch any show with a laugh track.  I thought Ken was Barbie's brother.

Now, little girls have lots of options.  Star Wars and Star Trek have huge expanded universes.  There are even girl-focused things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But now, I've noticed, little girls have a different problem.  Apparently, their options can't just be female - they have to be Feminist. Any female character who is married, has children, or cares about their appearance is considered bad for girls.  This leaves out Princess Leia - since she eventually marries and breeds, she is a terrible role model.  Tolkien's Eowyn and Arwen are also guilty of marriage and breeding.  They are bad role models.

I've recently become a fan of "Firefly".  There are at least two strong female role models on this show, but the one I hear called a Role Model is River Tam.  Somehow she is considered better than the veteran soldier or the genius mechanic.  Zoe and Kaylee own themselves, but apparently the fact that they like men makes them bad role models.  They own themselves, they choose to be with a man and possibly breed. Neither of them is defining herself through their men.  They are way more feminist than River, if only because they are women and she is a girl.  River doesn't know who she is.  Zoe and Kaylee do.

My world is still pretty small, so I'm sure there are lots of strong female characters I don't know about.  Of the ones I know, many of them fall short of the Feminist Ideal.  Robotech has lots of strong women, but since most of them hook up with men, they must not be good role models.  In the new Star Trek, is Uhura any less admirable because she's got a man?  In Harry Potter, we have Molly Weasley.  Is she any less of a role model because she's chosen to be a wife and mom?

If she's strong, capable, and happy with her choices, I consider any character to be a good role model for my female minions.   A healthy sex drive, a romantic interest, and a maternal instinct do not a weakling make.  In fact, the scariest enemy I can imagine is a mother defending her young.  Let these characters be complete women.  Stop limiting their choices. Isn't Feminism about women having choices?  If being a Feminist means a woman can't desire marriage and children, it's just another form of misogyny.

Blame the vendors.

School's back in session and, as usual, some stores are taking heat for selling sexist T-shirts to the female students.  The one that comes to mind right off is a checklist of "My best subjects" with stuff like shopping and gossiping checked, but math not checked and a note "Nobody's perfect".

The thing that galls me about this is not the message these things are sending, because that's open to interpretation. The thing that galls me is this: I see every day, on social media, posts of a little girl going off to school and everyone has to comment on how cute she is. I see parents spending more time on the kid's back-to-school wardrobe than on selecting the stuff that's actually gonna help the kid learn.

The same mom who just spent three hours choosing fashions and four seconds choosing study aids is the reason marketing offices think those T-shirts will sell. This same mom is going to someday quote Will Smith's mom "You go to school to learn, not for a fashion show" to the same kid she's instilled with the opposite truth.  And it isn't just girls.  Look at the boys getting off the school bus.  What's on their T-shirts?  Professional wrestlers, violent video games, camo...  they are getting a similar message.

If we are teaching our girls to be Bimbos and our boys to be Rambos, it is hardly the fault of the stores who sell us the stuff.  They wouldn't sell it if we didn't buy it.  They wouldn't try to sell it if we didn't give them the impression we wanted it.

130

We've been trying to get fit in our house, and it ain't been easy.  Santa brought us Wii Fit a couple years ago and we went mad with it for a while, I got down under 200 pounds, a weight I've not seen in many years.  Then the Wii Fit was no longer so new and fun.  I hate taking a walk just to be taking a walk - I like to have a destination in mind.  (And no, skinny doesn't count as a destination.)  In decent weather, I'm more than willing to walk my errands. I hate driving, anyway, and it's better for both me and the planet.  But to walk my errands meant taking the brat along a major highway.

We've been taking Family Walks in the evenings.  Thinking of it as family time seems to negate my aversion to not having a destination.  The brat is almost nine years old and generally rides his bike, leaving us pokey adults in his wake, but he knows now how to avoid getting splatted.  The route we take is roughly three miles.  THREE MILES!  No wonder my legs hurt!

After we got the Wii Fit and I lost weight, I felt a lot better.  I could bring the trash cans up from the foot of the driveway without sounding like Darth Vader...  well, in the lazy period between, I started puffing again. With these walks, I'm getting back to almost breathing normally.  I have more energy and just generally feel better.  With school starting back up, I'll be walking him to and from (at least until it's too cold), and trying to work the Wii Fit back into my daily routine.

I've always loved my fruits and veggies, so the only thing stopping me from snacking well is the fact that a Kit Kat is cheaper than a kiwi.  I've always liked fish and poultry better than red meat, too, so that's a plus.  I think the biggest obstacle is simply inertia.  Once I get moving, I'm good, but there are days it's all I can do to get out of bed.  Many days I just go through the motions of my chores and then plop down with my computer.

The computer is not gonna help me get into shape.  It helps fight off The Demon and keeps my creative juices flowing, but it isn't gonna do much for my physical health.  I don't want to be so fat that pulling my weight on a bike makes my knees ache for hours.  I don't wanna be winded after checking the mail.  It's no secret I've been suicidal and that I'm frequently depressed, but most of the time I want to live into my nineties.

Back in the day, I weighted 130 pounds and thought I was fat.  Now the doctors tell me 130 is a good ideal weight for me.  Maybe I should find an old photo of me in those days - healthy, fit, active - and attach it not to the fridge door but to the computer.  Make myself a rule... no writing, no Internet, until I've had at least my half-hour of exercise.

Sins of The Father

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that people take as commandments that I think are really just guidelines.  Like "Judge not, lest ye be judged".  Isn't that kinda like saying "Don't be human"?  Judging folks is part of human nature, like it or not.  Lots of folks forget that this is followed up with something about being measured by the same standards you're using... So really, it doesn't say not to judge.  It's saying not to be a hypocrite - always good advice.  I try to limit my judging of people to how they treat others, since I strive to treat everyone well.

But that one isn't really what's on my mind today.  I'm actually thinking more of the line about the sins of the father being visited upon the next seven generations.  Is that really fair?  Should I be punished for something an ancestor I may not even be able to name did?  I know when I was in school, there were teachers who saw my surname on the class list and immediately decided what I'd be like.  Which is kind of funny, since I'm actually not much like my siblings.  And they aren't much like each other.  It was my mother, really, that the teachers disliked.  If you crossed one of her kids - or even if she just perceived that you did - she descended upon the school like the Wrath of God.  Now, I'm all for parents keeping the schools in line.  Too many parents don't do that and the kids suffer for it.  But she went to war with the school over a required assignment in a required class once.  She ranted about my brother's dyslexia until they put him in a class far below his level.  Things like that.  Things that made them dread the name Schmidt showing up on their rosters.  

There was one teacher who I agreed with - she was an English teacher and had a serious problem with the word "ain't".  My mother went to war with her over it, but the only time I felt Mother was right was when the teacher tried to punish my brother for using the word in the dime store.  After all, it was her job to teach proper English and "ain't" is not proper English.  By the time I went through high school, she was one of the teachers whose classes I was forbidden to take.  Even if I wanted to.  I bet the other teachers were jealous.

Yeah, we apples usually don't fall far from the tree.  We generally mimic the beliefs and values of those who raised us. The sins of your father will be visited upon you for seven generations, but not because God is punishing you.  It's because of - say it with me - Human Nature.  As a general rule, my mother's kids were a pain in the collective teachers' ass.  They were right to moan upon seeing that name on the roster.  

Now, there are some apples who fall really far from the tree.  Sometimes a good family has a rotten apple. Sometimes a Sirius Black happens.  (That's a Harry Potter reference, by the way.  Sirius was a good apple that fell from a rotten tree.)  This is why "He didn't get that from my side of the family" was invented. The sins of your father will be visited back upon you for seven generations, not because God is punishing you, but because your ancestors shape who you are.

What speaks louder than actions?

One of my mother's favorite expressions was "Actions speak louder than words".  Not a bad point to make, generally, but she tended to apply her own interpretation of your motivations to your actions.  A teenager doesn't go to her brother's Little League games... does she hate her brother?  A woman stops speaking to her sister after the sister comes out of the closet... is she a homophobe?  So, I say unto you, actions may speak louder than words, but motivations speak louder than actions.  Ask the teenager and the sister what their motivations are and you might be surprised.

One of the most important questions you can ask is "Why?"  One of the first things cops look for in a crime is motive.  I did a previous blog about how the context of a "racial slur" can affect its meaning, which is another aspect of motivation.  Why did you get out of bed today?  That may seem like a simple question, but it isn't.  But I digress....

A few examples from my own life:

My brother's daughter is named Laura.  My grandmother, who was named Lura, thought the baby was named for her.  No, Laura's mother simply liked the name.  It's even possible that the mother didn't know my grandmother's name.  The action seemed to be an honor, but once motivation enters the picture, it becomes simply a phonetic coincidence.  There are namesakes in the family, but Laura simply isn't one of them.

I have two brothers who live outside the Cincinnati area and a sister who still lives in the area.  They are all three rabid Bengals fans. Why? I really can't tell you.  For me to say "Because it gives them a tie to home" would be just as wrong as brother-hate or homophobia in those first scenarios.

Both my parents had a bad case of thinking they were not important to the kids because we never came around.  They assigned it to an active dislike of them - never mind that we all worked and most of us had families of our own.  This is the sort of situation that I'm most concerned with.  Should I be offended that someone doesn't have the time or energy to visit me?  Particularly if they have no interests in common with me?

One of my favorite things is Benefit of the Doubt.  I found a little girl wandering up the road one day - wearing nothing but a shirt.  Thankfully, my optimistic view was validated.  She'd simply wandered out of the house while her adults were sleeping.  If I see a little kid not properly secured in a car seat, I remember the time I was given the choice between hauling a toddler that way or letting him ride with a drunk person.  (This does not apply to people who apparently have a trampoline for a backseat.)

There are, of course, cases in which the motivation is quite obvious.  Had the teenager in my first scenario established a pattern of brother-hating behavior, then I'd agree that she hates him.  Had the sister in my homophobe scenario been known to gay-bash, then the homophobe assumption works.  Motivations are all part of the bigger picture.  Can you think of a more benign motivation for them?

Let's talk about sex

My niece saw a woman breast feeding in public and her reaction was less than enlightened.  I have no problem with breast feeding in public, for two reasons. One, providing nourishment is the primary role of the breast.  It is why mammals have breasts.  Any secondary purpose is just that - secondary.  Skin can provide sexual pleasure, but societies that insist on covering every bit of it are considered backward and even sexist.   Two, it is unfair to women to make them cover what men can flaunt - even men no one wants to see.  A breast is a secondary sexual characteristic - medical definition there - just like the beards and body hair men have.  (Yes, I am advocating that women should be allowed to be topless in public.)

Of course, this hypocrisy isn't limited to the breast-feeding debate.  Or even to breasts themselves.  Our entire culture is obsessed with sex.  Look at our advertising, our pop culture, even our Snobby Literature.  (Read some Shakespeare.  Damn!)   But then look at our real life.  Children are not allowed to have a penis or a vulva - they have cutesy names for those parts like "PeeBug" or "Lolly".  We explain, in simple terms at first, how digestion and breathing work, but sex is taboo.

How many molested children could have been saved by the simple knowledge that these are ADULT actions, and therefore should not be done to or by kids?  We teach them to report "Bobby punched me" or "Suzie stole my allowance", but not this violation.  Because we don't want our children to know about sex.  That's just plain stupid.

I am a prude.  I think you should wait for marriage.  I regret having had sex.  That said, I also know that the sex I had did not kill me or even make me sick. What passes for Sex Ed in most schools is a lesson in biology followed by IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE. We don't teach Driver's Ed by screaming IF YOU DRIVE YOU WILL WRECK AND DIE.  In every other area, we teach moderation and caution.  This can be done with sex.  It is not the job of the schools to teach morals or religion.  If you don't want your child to have sex for moral or religious reasons, it is your job to teach them that.

I'm also a borderline nudist.  But that's a whole 'nother blog.

Empty homes and the homeless

I have a comic somewhere, a Wizard of Id in which the King is sitting on his throne.  Someone walks up and says "Do something about the homeless".  Second panel, another person says "Do something about all these empty buildings".  Third panel, the King thinks "They make it sound so easy."

The truth of that comic resonates with me.  I think it could be that easy.  Whether a private individual did it, or a corporation, or even the meddlesome government.  If a building sits empty why can we not give it - yes, GIVE IT - to the homeless.  They can live in it and therefore no longer be homeless.  If it is not up to code, they can be given funds and/or time to fix it.  Or - here's a radical thought - the codes can be relaxed.  Our ancestors lived without running water or electricity.  Even in an era where "Welfare Apartments" have dishwashers and central air, it is possible that someone might find a Little House on The Prairie preferable to a Van Down By the River.

If it is a larger structure, say an abandoned factory, it could be made over into apartments.  Or even a tent city with a roof.  Yes, there are shelters, but I've been told that sleeping under a bush in the park is safer than a shelter.  By someone who was homeless.

If the buildings are beyond help, they should be torn down.  Plain and simple.  Empty buildings are unsafe and ugly.  Stop arresting the homeless who squat in them.  Give them the place, help them fix it up, and everyone's happy.  Well, everyone but God Money.  God Money can go take a flying leap.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  

This was the original Pledge of Allegiance.  It wasn't until later that the word "to" was put in front of "the republic".  Even later, they changed "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America".  Even after that, the much discussed "under God" was added. Some claim that adding "under God" made it a prayer, and therefore a violation of Separation of Church and State.  Now that you've had a history lesson, let's move on.

I am an agnostic-bordering-on-pagan.  I do not engage in the blind patriotism or mindless conformity implied by the Pledge.  But I also do not take issue with kids saying it every morning in school.  They have no clue what a pledge really means.  We aren't cognizant of the ramifications at that age, so the recitation of a bunch of words means nothing.  It holds no sway over them and no one - including any reasonable god - is going to hold them to it.

Saying the Pledge will not make him an American Patriot if he goes home to adults who want to overthrow the Commie Kenyan.  Reciting "Under God" will not make him a worshiper of anything he doesn't see worshiped by those he respects and loves.  You want your kid to be a patriot and worship a god?  Practice what you preach.  Talk to him - kids are not stupid. 

"But he's just a child.  He can't understand."  You just proved my point. 

Respecting the Dead

I find it very strange that, given my interest in history and genealogy, I don't hold a graveyard in the same high regard others do.  Or maybe I should say a grave.  Yesterday my sister and I drove past a cemetery where a friend was buried and she asked if I wanted to stop.  I said no and she told me how she stops whenever she is in the area to see him.

I get that she doesn't mean that literally.  I, too, have stopped to see my loved ones that way.  And I love a cemetery.  I think of cemeteries as tangible history.  I could wander one for hours, even if none of my people were buried there.  But I do things others consider disrespectful.  I walk across the graves and sit on the headstones - when I'm dead, you may feel free to do the same to mine.  I've been given grief for taking a shortcut through a graveyard instead of driving on 'real' roads.  

What I do see disrespect in is the folks who 'walk' their dogs in the graveyard.  The ones who take things off the graves - flowers, trinkets, whatever.  The difference is simple - these things are important to someone.  To steal from someone or poop on what is important to them is blatant disrespect.  You know perfectly well you shouldn't do it and you also know you'd be angry if someone did it to you.

I suppose that's the difference. I suppose it all goes back to the Golden Rule.

Anyway, it is odd.  I love a graveyard, the older the better.  But I also don't understand the problem when a cemetery is abandoned.  Clearly, whoever loved these folks has moved on.  The cemetery has outlived its purpose - to comfort the living.

Anyway, it is odd to love history and genealogy, yet not to buy the idea that a graveyard is sacred ground.  Each individual grave is sacred ground to someone, yes, but that's an entirely different matter.