Donald Trump is President-Elect and the world is going nuts trying to figure out who to blame it on. The Russians? The programmers of the voting machines? Hillary Clinton? The Republicans? The Democrats? Satan, even?
Here's the deal, folks. We The People are to blame. We The People bought into the thinking that those two were our only options. We The People chose between the lesser of two evils. We The People believed that a mother and grandmother wanted to kill babies because she's Pro-Choice. We The People believed a man was a sexist and a racist because of things taken out of context.
I "wasted" my vote on a candidate I thought was better qualified than those two. I'll probably do it again. The men who designed our system wanted me to do it. They wanted all of us to do it - not to vote for the lesser of two evils, not to vote against anyone, but to hire the best person for the job.
Also, we are not "screwed" because of who got elected. The President of the United States does not hold that kind of power. He has to work with the Legislative Branch - and no matter what their party lines might be, those folks are not going to back anything that's going to cost them their jobs. Because it will. This election was a mess, to put it mildly, but it opened a lot of eyes.
We The People are awake now. We The People will be watching those we've elected, as we should have been all along. We The People - most of us, anyway - are not happy about how this turned out, for various reasons. Strange as it may seem, this election may be a blessing in disguise.
Sometimes you have to shoot yourself in the foot before realizing you need to learn more about guns.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
Another Barbie Rant
Just saw a news story about a woman who made a breast feeding Barbie. Every now and then another story comes along about the Lammily doll - the normal Barbie is what that one usually gets called. How pathetic do they think children are? Dolls run on imagination and if your kid is so lacking in that area that they need all this stuff that's being sold, I'm afraid you have bigger problems.
You want your doll to breast-feed, pop open her shirt and have her hold a baby to her breast. This is much easier with a elbow-articulated doll, by the way. You want her to have a period, make her some little pads out of paper or bits of cloth. There is no need for all these specialized dolls.
I give credit to the toy makers for more realistic proportions, even though I do not agree that Barbie's freakish figure psychologically damages children.
Lammily you can buy scar stickers for. My Barbies have scars - mostly stray pen marks - and these aren't removable. Who's realistic now, Lammily? I've had Barbies lose limbs and explained it away with car accidents. But some revolutionary out there is making amputee dolls.
I'll admit to having to coach my minions a bit, but I am not going to buy them something they can improvise for themselves. If your child cannot figure out how to make a Zombie Fighter out of dolls, clothes, and accessories they already own... I blame you. Granted, it is more fun sometimes to have the specific character, but I'm referring to generalities. A lot of these amazing, innovative dolls I'm hearing about are variations my doll-play even as a child. In the 1970s.
You want your doll to breast-feed, pop open her shirt and have her hold a baby to her breast. This is much easier with a elbow-articulated doll, by the way. You want her to have a period, make her some little pads out of paper or bits of cloth. There is no need for all these specialized dolls.
I give credit to the toy makers for more realistic proportions, even though I do not agree that Barbie's freakish figure psychologically damages children.
Lammily you can buy scar stickers for. My Barbies have scars - mostly stray pen marks - and these aren't removable. Who's realistic now, Lammily? I've had Barbies lose limbs and explained it away with car accidents. But some revolutionary out there is making amputee dolls.
I'll admit to having to coach my minions a bit, but I am not going to buy them something they can improvise for themselves. If your child cannot figure out how to make a Zombie Fighter out of dolls, clothes, and accessories they already own... I blame you. Granted, it is more fun sometimes to have the specific character, but I'm referring to generalities. A lot of these amazing, innovative dolls I'm hearing about are variations my doll-play even as a child. In the 1970s.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Protesting vs Rioting
Well, this election has brought us to a new low in American behavior. I didn't vote for the man, I've never liked the man, but guess what? He is the choice, apparently, of The People. Some civilized folks are talking of petitions and abolishing the Electoral College, which I can get behind. Work within the system to change it - that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.
However, these civilized folks seem to be a minority. My social media is full of decidedly uncivilized stories. "Not my President" says the same people who scorned folks for saying it four years go. Those who did support the President-Elect are dancing around like four-year-olds singing "nanner nanner boo boo".
I"m not going to repeat my speech about checks and balances. I'm not going to bother to tell you he can't kick down the Oval Office door like Bill Cosby's dad and repeal standing laws on a whim. I'm just exhausted from saying it. What I am going to do is define a couple words for the media.
A protest is peaceful. A riot is not. The moment a "protester" hurts another person physically or damages property, they become a "rioter". The two words are not synonyms, and they certainly do not change definition because the reporter agrees or disagrees with their position. If I go stand in public with a big sign, I am not a rioter just because you don't like what my sign says. If I beat up people and break windows, I am not a protester just because you think I have a point.
Protesters do not physically attack folks that disagree with them. Protesters do not bust things up and set things on fire. Protesters might yell insults, they might jump to conclusions about you based on your appearance (Who doesn't?), but when they cross that line and do physical harm, they stop being protesters. They become rioters.
About rioting... what do these people hope to accomplish? Has anyone even had their mind changed by getting beat up or having their house burned down? Oh, they might seem to, but they don't. They get mad. KKK visits in the 1860s led to race riots in the 1960s. And the Civil Rights Movement - which, since it was civilized, did bring change.
OK, I'm putting away my soap box now.
However, these civilized folks seem to be a minority. My social media is full of decidedly uncivilized stories. "Not my President" says the same people who scorned folks for saying it four years go. Those who did support the President-Elect are dancing around like four-year-olds singing "nanner nanner boo boo".
I"m not going to repeat my speech about checks and balances. I'm not going to bother to tell you he can't kick down the Oval Office door like Bill Cosby's dad and repeal standing laws on a whim. I'm just exhausted from saying it. What I am going to do is define a couple words for the media.
A protest is peaceful. A riot is not. The moment a "protester" hurts another person physically or damages property, they become a "rioter". The two words are not synonyms, and they certainly do not change definition because the reporter agrees or disagrees with their position. If I go stand in public with a big sign, I am not a rioter just because you don't like what my sign says. If I beat up people and break windows, I am not a protester just because you think I have a point.
Protesters do not physically attack folks that disagree with them. Protesters do not bust things up and set things on fire. Protesters might yell insults, they might jump to conclusions about you based on your appearance (Who doesn't?), but when they cross that line and do physical harm, they stop being protesters. They become rioters.
About rioting... what do these people hope to accomplish? Has anyone even had their mind changed by getting beat up or having their house burned down? Oh, they might seem to, but they don't. They get mad. KKK visits in the 1860s led to race riots in the 1960s. And the Civil Rights Movement - which, since it was civilized, did bring change.
OK, I'm putting away my soap box now.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
A Place Of My Own
The boy is twelve now, hardly in need of 24 hour supervision and able to do most of the chores that had been mine. I started feeling rather useless, even though the family jumped up and down and insisted I was not! There were also some minor personality issues. (I like sunshine and fresh air, they are vampires. I like to get 'er done, they procrastinate.)
Some folks seem to believe that I was kept in a deep dark dungeon and only let out to be a slave. Looking at my history, there is a basis for this. I have been known to stay in emotionally abusive relationships for far longer than needed, and even to defend the meanie. But it is an insult to Josh and Chelle. They treat me with more respect than most of the planet does.
I worried a lot about using my freeloading abilities to take more than I really needed, but several friends and family encouraged me to do it. So I did. I now have my own open window, sunshiny apartment with the help of those government programs for folks like me. It's a nice little place and the only problem I've had is the smell of cigarette smoke. Air fresheners are my friends.
I did have to leave Cleo behind, but she's happy at Josh and Chelle's. Moving at the advanced age of seventeen might have been too much for her, anyway, and I do get to see her since I visit often. I find myself talking to the Barbies. I guess that's all right as long as they don't reply.
Getting all my financial ducks in a row has been a little rough. I'd saved the money for rent and deposits, big stuff like that, but the incidentals? I had to buy a broom! And a kitchen trash can! Every time I turn around it, it seems like there's another small thing I need to buy. Most of the big stuff is hand-me-downs - my family and friends are still offering me stuff.
The conditions of my lease (IE limits on how long guests can stay) will protect me from being taken advantage of. There's a reason Josh calls me The Big Sucker Lady... So here I am, enjoying the sunshine and listening to Cat Stevens. Maybe later I'll even open a window.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Flags, Anthems, and Other Sacred Symbols
I've blogged before about flags. To sum up, it is a symbol and symbols can mean very different things to those viewing them. This time the symbol in the news is a song - The National Anthem - but the basic argument remains the same.
NFL players are choosing not to stand for the National Anthem. As I understand it, they are protesting racism. Some are simply showing solidarity with their team mates, for the freedom to choose not to stand. I think they are wrong but I also know they have this thing called Freedom of Expression. And I'm appalled by the hypocrites being appalled.
How many of these people yelling about this are, even as it happens, plopped in a recliner? How many didn't bat an eye when Tom Brady hocked a giant loogie during a Moment of Silence for murdered children? How many sit on the curb when the flag passes during a parade, usually carried by combat veterans?
Then there's the question of forced compliance. That in itself is a violation of the US Constitution, which is based upon freedom. We have the right to disrespect the Sacred Symbols of others - note the cartoonists being defended when they draw Mohammed. These freedoms apply to everyone.
To me, these symbols are not about what we are - they are about what we should be, what we want to be, the ideals which we repeatedly fall short of. But we keep trying and that is what I stand up for. If I stand - and honestly, sometimes I don't. There are a variety of reasons, but I have that right. I'll thank you to respect it. As I respect yours.
NFL players are choosing not to stand for the National Anthem. As I understand it, they are protesting racism. Some are simply showing solidarity with their team mates, for the freedom to choose not to stand. I think they are wrong but I also know they have this thing called Freedom of Expression. And I'm appalled by the hypocrites being appalled.
How many of these people yelling about this are, even as it happens, plopped in a recliner? How many didn't bat an eye when Tom Brady hocked a giant loogie during a Moment of Silence for murdered children? How many sit on the curb when the flag passes during a parade, usually carried by combat veterans?
Then there's the question of forced compliance. That in itself is a violation of the US Constitution, which is based upon freedom. We have the right to disrespect the Sacred Symbols of others - note the cartoonists being defended when they draw Mohammed. These freedoms apply to everyone.
To me, these symbols are not about what we are - they are about what we should be, what we want to be, the ideals which we repeatedly fall short of. But we keep trying and that is what I stand up for. If I stand - and honestly, sometimes I don't. There are a variety of reasons, but I have that right. I'll thank you to respect it. As I respect yours.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Little Plastic People - Part 3
Been looking at Barbie blogs. There's a lot of them where folks have like whole communities of dolls and stage soap operas. I really like the one called "How To Play With Barbies". It's by a lady who has taken my philosophy of using the dolls as teaching tools way beyond what I do. For example, in my Barbie World, if a kid wants to make Kira be married to Candy, I'm okay with it. Well, this lady has a doll of a lesbian celebrity - and a doll of the real-life wife. She made the wife doll. MADE it! She used a doll of Mimi from The Drew Carey show to teach her daughter not to hate on fat people. She seeks out dolls she can use for lessons.
I try not to have hard-and-fast rules about doll play. I think it stifles creativity. Right now, I'm making an album on my Facebook that's 2016 Barbie Scenarios and I have established for that a dollhouse family and some roles for others. But that probably won't be permanent, considering I'm eyeing the teen son for my next purge. Also because, like I said, I try to avoid hard and fast rules.
My Barbie population now stands at 17 females, 10 males, and four animals. I divide them into age groups by not just body molds, but faces as well. A few of them are ambiguous - Mary could be a tall early teen or a late teen. Sulu, Four, and Finnick are late teens or adults. Skipper falls somewhere between the young teens and child. Most of the adult females can also serve as late teens, but some of the faces firmly place them in one group or the other.
My minions have many stories of doll play at Jeanie's. I've pontificated in the past about gender roles, so I'll spare you most of that. Suffice to say that, to the best of my knowledge, none of my male minions has been gay. There is a very real difference in how the boys play... usually someone ends in with a head in the oven or toilet...
I try not to have hard-and-fast rules about doll play. I think it stifles creativity. Right now, I'm making an album on my Facebook that's 2016 Barbie Scenarios and I have established for that a dollhouse family and some roles for others. But that probably won't be permanent, considering I'm eyeing the teen son for my next purge. Also because, like I said, I try to avoid hard and fast rules.
My Barbie population now stands at 17 females, 10 males, and four animals. I divide them into age groups by not just body molds, but faces as well. A few of them are ambiguous - Mary could be a tall early teen or a late teen. Sulu, Four, and Finnick are late teens or adults. Skipper falls somewhere between the young teens and child. Most of the adult females can also serve as late teens, but some of the faces firmly place them in one group or the other.
My minions have many stories of doll play at Jeanie's. I've pontificated in the past about gender roles, so I'll spare you most of that. Suffice to say that, to the best of my knowledge, none of my male minions has been gay. There is a very real difference in how the boys play... usually someone ends in with a head in the oven or toilet...
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Meg Mysteries by Holly Beth Walker
The Meg books are a series of young female detective stories, along the lines of Nancy Drew and Trixie Belden. I couldn't identify with the rich, almost grown Nancy. Trixie and the Dana Sisters were better, but I absolutely LOVED Meg Duncan. I'm now fifty years old and still own and read these books - my other teen detectives are long gone.
The main character in these is younger than in the others, probably not technically a teen. I think the books were written for the slightly younger set, as they're thinner and less complex. I could read the entire series of six in a sitting, if I were so inclined.
Meg is an only child, who lives with her widowed father and a pair of elderly (or middle-aged, depending on the book) not-quite-servants. The wife is the housekeeper and the husband caretaker of the property. Meg's dad seems to be a workaholic. She also has a Siamese cat, which might explain my own preference for the breed. She has a backstory that includes an early childhood in Japan and a wealthy bachelor uncle.
Her sidekick is Kerry - who lives next door with her six siblings, many pets, and parents. Much is made of her tomboy ways as compared to Meg's preference for painting and ballet. Horses are a big part of Kerry's life, a wise choice on the author's part, given the audience. It also solves the problem of having non-driver lead characters.
Anyway. I'm not sure why I love these books so much. I sometimes think I'd like to pick up where Holly Beth Walker left off. Lots of people have never even heard of them, but they keep calling me back like Nancy Drew or Trixie Belden never did.
The main character in these is younger than in the others, probably not technically a teen. I think the books were written for the slightly younger set, as they're thinner and less complex. I could read the entire series of six in a sitting, if I were so inclined.
Meg is an only child, who lives with her widowed father and a pair of elderly (or middle-aged, depending on the book) not-quite-servants. The wife is the housekeeper and the husband caretaker of the property. Meg's dad seems to be a workaholic. She also has a Siamese cat, which might explain my own preference for the breed. She has a backstory that includes an early childhood in Japan and a wealthy bachelor uncle.
Her sidekick is Kerry - who lives next door with her six siblings, many pets, and parents. Much is made of her tomboy ways as compared to Meg's preference for painting and ballet. Horses are a big part of Kerry's life, a wise choice on the author's part, given the audience. It also solves the problem of having non-driver lead characters.
Anyway. I'm not sure why I love these books so much. I sometimes think I'd like to pick up where Holly Beth Walker left off. Lots of people have never even heard of them, but they keep calling me back like Nancy Drew or Trixie Belden never did.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Bullying, Again
I pontificated before about the bullying problem and what I think should be done about it. This one is for the kids. Not the victims, not the bullies. The other kids. The ones who aren't sure what to do or how to do it. The ones who will say "I didn't do anything to him."
I'm speaking from my own experience as a bullied junior high schooler. Strange as it may seem, one of the kindest things a classmate ever did for me was a note. It said "Please don't tell anyone because I don't want to be picked on, too. I like you. I think you are nice." With her signature. I've never forgotten that. That girl reached out to me the only way she felt she could.
A couple of other girls reached out, too, They gave me a makeover during Study Hall. Maybe it was just that I was the only one who would let them, I really don't know. When they finished and held up the mirror, I expected to look ridiculous. I thought the whole thing was a set up, a means to humiliate me, but it wasn't. They even offered to give me some of their make-up that they didn't want anymore. (I suspect knowledge of my family's poverty had more to do with it, but they wanted to protect my pride.) One girl offered me clothes she didn't wear any more. I declined the offers - I just knew it was a trap. When I wore the offered cosmetics and clothing, they would make sure they entire school knew I was a rag picker.
Why did I feel that way? When the teacher left the music classroom and the bullies pushed me into a corner, going through my purse and making fun of the contents, or just making fun of the purse itself... No one spoke up. A couple dozen kids let them do it. To me, that said I deserved it. That said we hate you just as much as those guys do. That said I was loathed by the entire student body.
My period as the victim was only a year or two, but at the time it was forever. All those kids who I know now did not hate me... I just want to apologize to every one of them. I want to tell them I understand why they didn't act. But at the time, their loathing of me was a fact.
So, boys and girls, the next time you see a classmate being pushed around, realize how your silence is perceived. Realize that, in their eyes, you are either cheering the bullies on or - maybe worse - you don't care either way. Even if you don't have the courage to confront the bully on their behalf (the best course), the least you can do is a kind word when no one is looking.
Why didn't I stand up for myself? No one else stood up for me, at a time in my life when the opinions of your peers is crucial, so maybe I thought I deserved it. (Well, I did eventually stand up for myself. I like to think the small kindnesses mentioned above helped me to do so.) Why didn't I just stop being *insert adjective*? It's easy to blame the victim, maybe even part of human nature, so don't beat yourself up too much if you've done it. A lot of the things kids get bullied over are beyond their control. I couldn't make my mother get off Welfare, I wasn't allowed to do "normal" things, and I sure couldn't stop doing things I didn't know were "wrong".
So, you other kids, I give you life from the perspective of at least one bullying victim. It's not enough to not bully. It's not enough to feel sorry for them. You have to act, even if all you do is plead with them not to blab the fact that they don't hate you.
I'm speaking from my own experience as a bullied junior high schooler. Strange as it may seem, one of the kindest things a classmate ever did for me was a note. It said "Please don't tell anyone because I don't want to be picked on, too. I like you. I think you are nice." With her signature. I've never forgotten that. That girl reached out to me the only way she felt she could.
A couple of other girls reached out, too, They gave me a makeover during Study Hall. Maybe it was just that I was the only one who would let them, I really don't know. When they finished and held up the mirror, I expected to look ridiculous. I thought the whole thing was a set up, a means to humiliate me, but it wasn't. They even offered to give me some of their make-up that they didn't want anymore. (I suspect knowledge of my family's poverty had more to do with it, but they wanted to protect my pride.) One girl offered me clothes she didn't wear any more. I declined the offers - I just knew it was a trap. When I wore the offered cosmetics and clothing, they would make sure they entire school knew I was a rag picker.
Why did I feel that way? When the teacher left the music classroom and the bullies pushed me into a corner, going through my purse and making fun of the contents, or just making fun of the purse itself... No one spoke up. A couple dozen kids let them do it. To me, that said I deserved it. That said we hate you just as much as those guys do. That said I was loathed by the entire student body.
My period as the victim was only a year or two, but at the time it was forever. All those kids who I know now did not hate me... I just want to apologize to every one of them. I want to tell them I understand why they didn't act. But at the time, their loathing of me was a fact.
So, boys and girls, the next time you see a classmate being pushed around, realize how your silence is perceived. Realize that, in their eyes, you are either cheering the bullies on or - maybe worse - you don't care either way. Even if you don't have the courage to confront the bully on their behalf (the best course), the least you can do is a kind word when no one is looking.
Why didn't I stand up for myself? No one else stood up for me, at a time in my life when the opinions of your peers is crucial, so maybe I thought I deserved it. (Well, I did eventually stand up for myself. I like to think the small kindnesses mentioned above helped me to do so.) Why didn't I just stop being *insert adjective*? It's easy to blame the victim, maybe even part of human nature, so don't beat yourself up too much if you've done it. A lot of the things kids get bullied over are beyond their control. I couldn't make my mother get off Welfare, I wasn't allowed to do "normal" things, and I sure couldn't stop doing things I didn't know were "wrong".
So, you other kids, I give you life from the perspective of at least one bullying victim. It's not enough to not bully. It's not enough to feel sorry for them. You have to act, even if all you do is plead with them not to blab the fact that they don't hate you.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Shipping
For those among my hordes of readers who are unfamiliar with the terminology: Fandom = the group of people who are fans of something (IE Trekkies/Trekkers are the Star Trek fandom) Shipping = wanting/hoping/wishing a couple are or will be a couple. (IE Some folks ship Spock and Kirk)
Now to my rant. I shipped Hermione and Viktor. I really didn't want her to end up with Ron or Harry. I liked the platonic three-way they had going on. Rowling, however, had other plans (obviously). She arranged for them to end up family. I'm bummed, but I get it, both as a fan (the canon relationships suit them) and as a writer (sometimes them characters just do what they want). I can imagine an alternate Harry Potter universe wherein my vision came to pass, but I should also accept that in the "real" world, Hermione married Ron.
I saw a comment tonight on Facebook that - well, I'll paraphrase and use my own example. "I loathe Ron with Hermione. They make no sense as a couple. Hermione belongs with Viktor." Except this person didn't even name a canon character - "Hermione belongs with" a character... from the comment writer's fan fiction...
This goes way beyond playing "what if" and completely leaves the fandom in my opinion. I did not ship Mulder and Scully. I did not ship Xena and Gabrielle. I did not ship Kaylee and Simon. But guess what? The creators of the universes in which those characters live put a lot of thought and work into making those relationships real to fans.
I imagine, if my own stories were ever part of pop culture, how I would feel in this situation. Did I fail to make it real to my readers? Of course, I'd have to laugh at the idea of my using someone else's fan fiction character - not even sure how that's supposed to happen. How can you even call yourself a fan of mine if you hate what I've done?
Now to my rant. I shipped Hermione and Viktor. I really didn't want her to end up with Ron or Harry. I liked the platonic three-way they had going on. Rowling, however, had other plans (obviously). She arranged for them to end up family. I'm bummed, but I get it, both as a fan (the canon relationships suit them) and as a writer (sometimes them characters just do what they want). I can imagine an alternate Harry Potter universe wherein my vision came to pass, but I should also accept that in the "real" world, Hermione married Ron.
I saw a comment tonight on Facebook that - well, I'll paraphrase and use my own example. "I loathe Ron with Hermione. They make no sense as a couple. Hermione belongs with Viktor." Except this person didn't even name a canon character - "Hermione belongs with" a character... from the comment writer's fan fiction...
This goes way beyond playing "what if" and completely leaves the fandom in my opinion. I did not ship Mulder and Scully. I did not ship Xena and Gabrielle. I did not ship Kaylee and Simon. But guess what? The creators of the universes in which those characters live put a lot of thought and work into making those relationships real to fans.
I imagine, if my own stories were ever part of pop culture, how I would feel in this situation. Did I fail to make it real to my readers? Of course, I'd have to laugh at the idea of my using someone else's fan fiction character - not even sure how that's supposed to happen. How can you even call yourself a fan of mine if you hate what I've done?
Monday, July 4, 2016
Little Plastic People (part 2)
It's no secret that I like Barbie dolls. I've got a six foot dollhouse (made for American Girl size dolls), a zillion Barbies, A redheaded My Size named Rusty, and an 18 inch Pocahontas. What might surprise some folks is that I don't run around buying them willy-nilly. I do have standards.
I prefer jointed dolls, as they are more easily posed in my scenarios and easier to dress. My favorite man dolls are Sulu and Pike - Playmates dolls jointed much like a GI Joe. If I can't get joints, I want a natural looking pose. The doll should have bent elbows or, at the least, relaxed arms. Those perfectly straight stereotype-zombie arms? No, thank you. One of my dolls isn't jointed at all, but the molding of her arms and legs and even the unusual body mold give her a sassy attitude. The blue hair and ornery expression help, too!
Unlike many Barbie Girls, I don't care for hair play - my last two purchases were short-haired, in fact. I go for unusual hair colors - many of mine have at the very least a streak of some odd color in their hair. The ones who don't definitely had some other feature I liked!
Facial expressions are important, too. Too many fashion dolls suffer from Vapid Face. Even if my doll doesn't look like a genius, it needs to have something going on. Barbies are meant to be a blank slate - at least that was what Ruth Handler had in mind when she invented them - but that's just a little too blank for me.
One bonus to having various sizes is that clothes almost always fit somebody. Even those ridiculously skinny Monster High clothes do - the less sexy ones make adorable dresses for Viv and Kelly (four inch toddlers).
I am not a collector. Collectors leave the poor things trapped in the boxes and I just can't do that - I've tried. I currently have Fred and Wilma Flintstone in boxes. They keep talking to me...
I prefer jointed dolls, as they are more easily posed in my scenarios and easier to dress. My favorite man dolls are Sulu and Pike - Playmates dolls jointed much like a GI Joe. If I can't get joints, I want a natural looking pose. The doll should have bent elbows or, at the least, relaxed arms. Those perfectly straight stereotype-zombie arms? No, thank you. One of my dolls isn't jointed at all, but the molding of her arms and legs and even the unusual body mold give her a sassy attitude. The blue hair and ornery expression help, too!
Unlike many Barbie Girls, I don't care for hair play - my last two purchases were short-haired, in fact. I go for unusual hair colors - many of mine have at the very least a streak of some odd color in their hair. The ones who don't definitely had some other feature I liked!
Facial expressions are important, too. Too many fashion dolls suffer from Vapid Face. Even if my doll doesn't look like a genius, it needs to have something going on. Barbies are meant to be a blank slate - at least that was what Ruth Handler had in mind when she invented them - but that's just a little too blank for me.
One bonus to having various sizes is that clothes almost always fit somebody. Even those ridiculously skinny Monster High clothes do - the less sexy ones make adorable dresses for Viv and Kelly (four inch toddlers).
I am not a collector. Collectors leave the poor things trapped in the boxes and I just can't do that - I've tried. I currently have Fred and Wilma Flintstone in boxes. They keep talking to me...
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Reaching 50
Well, today's my birthday. I'm 50. Lots of jokes about me being old. Which is funny, for a couple of reasons. First of all, there's the fact that I believe age is a matter of mind - if you don't mind, it don't matter! Anyone who knows me will vouch for my decidedly not-middle-age behavior. Sometimes I get scolded right along with the children.
The other, bigger, point is this: There was a time that my making it to 30 was questionable. I'd been hospitalized three times, once for an actual suicide attempt and the others as prevention. Suicide had been a frequent thought since my late teens. I'm a Prozac success story - the controversial anti-depressant has literally saved my life. It wasn't as simple as me popping a pill and everything was all better, though.
The Prozac only reins it in - I refer to "it" as The Demon or Sybrie The Tenth (more on that in a minute). Because it was reined in, I could research the problem, and those know me will appreciate just how bad it was that I couldn't do research. I've been in and out of counseling - my current LSW says I'm good to go without unless I have a crisis. I've learned and use coping methods.
I strongly recommend "Overcoming Depression" to anyone dealing with this problem - directly or indirectly. The authors are a married couple with a Greek surname. His is, I'm pretty sure, Demetri Papolous. It explains the biological and psychological causes and gives guidelines for living with and tracking the course of the illness. I wore out my first copy!
The coping methods work better for some individuals than for others, obviously. The ones I find work best for me are humor and what I call the Charlie Translator. Charlie was my dad, and he had a real problem with expressing himself - even praise sounded negative. So I trained myself to filter what people say and do through the Charlie Translator and then apply a heavy dose of Benefit of The Doubt.
Humor usually takes the form of hyperbole. Sometimes it seems like I'm seriously claiming to be crazier than I am, but remember that when I was diagnosed (and put on Prozac) that the mentally ill were scary to most people. I took that fear and mocked it, and the habit has remained. Sybrie the Tenth was born of this - I made a crack once about "nine out of ten of my personalities". It became a running joke, especially with my friend Sandy. That tenth personality is The Demon, or Number Ten. Sandy eventually combined "Sybil" and "Carrie" and we gave her the royal-sounding name Sybrie The Tenth. (I do not actually have multiples - and no mockery of those who do is intended.)
Some methods of coping can be quite annoying. If you know someone like this, be patient with them. They aren't hurting you, or anyone else, so let it go. This is how they keep their Sybrie in the cage. If they are hurting someone (including themselves) then they need to find a new method ASAP.
Anyway, thanks for reading. Nine out of ten of my personalities are enjoying being 50.
The other, bigger, point is this: There was a time that my making it to 30 was questionable. I'd been hospitalized three times, once for an actual suicide attempt and the others as prevention. Suicide had been a frequent thought since my late teens. I'm a Prozac success story - the controversial anti-depressant has literally saved my life. It wasn't as simple as me popping a pill and everything was all better, though.
The Prozac only reins it in - I refer to "it" as The Demon or Sybrie The Tenth (more on that in a minute). Because it was reined in, I could research the problem, and those know me will appreciate just how bad it was that I couldn't do research. I've been in and out of counseling - my current LSW says I'm good to go without unless I have a crisis. I've learned and use coping methods.
I strongly recommend "Overcoming Depression" to anyone dealing with this problem - directly or indirectly. The authors are a married couple with a Greek surname. His is, I'm pretty sure, Demetri Papolous. It explains the biological and psychological causes and gives guidelines for living with and tracking the course of the illness. I wore out my first copy!
The coping methods work better for some individuals than for others, obviously. The ones I find work best for me are humor and what I call the Charlie Translator. Charlie was my dad, and he had a real problem with expressing himself - even praise sounded negative. So I trained myself to filter what people say and do through the Charlie Translator and then apply a heavy dose of Benefit of The Doubt.
Humor usually takes the form of hyperbole. Sometimes it seems like I'm seriously claiming to be crazier than I am, but remember that when I was diagnosed (and put on Prozac) that the mentally ill were scary to most people. I took that fear and mocked it, and the habit has remained. Sybrie the Tenth was born of this - I made a crack once about "nine out of ten of my personalities". It became a running joke, especially with my friend Sandy. That tenth personality is The Demon, or Number Ten. Sandy eventually combined "Sybil" and "Carrie" and we gave her the royal-sounding name Sybrie The Tenth. (I do not actually have multiples - and no mockery of those who do is intended.)
Some methods of coping can be quite annoying. If you know someone like this, be patient with them. They aren't hurting you, or anyone else, so let it go. This is how they keep their Sybrie in the cage. If they are hurting someone (including themselves) then they need to find a new method ASAP.
Anyway, thanks for reading. Nine out of ten of my personalities are enjoying being 50.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Private lives of Public Figures
Bill Cosby slipping women a mickey and raping them. Michael Jackson molesting children. Johnny Depp slapping his wife around. Too many to name cheating on spouses/significant others. Sex and drugs in general.
Celebrities are role models, but so are we. The only difference is that their sphere of influence is larger. Fans of the folks I listed above will object, no doubt, that an accusation is not the same as having actually done the deed. For purposes of the point I'm about to make, all of that is immaterial.
Years ago, I was told that to go to the movies was to reward "the Hollywood lifestyle" of divorce and adultery and debauchery. It made no sense to me then and makes no sense to me now. We pay actors to act, singers to sing, comedians to make us laugh.
Laughing at "BROWM right on top of good ole Noah" doesn't mean I'm okay with roofies. Rocking out to Thriller doesn't mean I believe kids need molested. Enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't mean I like punching women. None of that even means I think the accusations are unfounded. (Some I do believe are unfounded or exaggerated, but that's also beside my point.)
Look at the current Presidential race. All these candidates are being judged, at least in part, on their personal lives instead of the qualifications for the job. Can you imagine being told you didn't get a customer service job because you didn't divorce your cheating husband? Not because you came into the interview and insulted the other interviewees, not because you refused to serve the poor or the ethnic, but for something that has no bearing on the job?
It's lunch time. If I go to Subway, it doesn't mean I'm okay with what Jared did. It just means I like them sandwiches!
Celebrities are role models, but so are we. The only difference is that their sphere of influence is larger. Fans of the folks I listed above will object, no doubt, that an accusation is not the same as having actually done the deed. For purposes of the point I'm about to make, all of that is immaterial.
Years ago, I was told that to go to the movies was to reward "the Hollywood lifestyle" of divorce and adultery and debauchery. It made no sense to me then and makes no sense to me now. We pay actors to act, singers to sing, comedians to make us laugh.
Laughing at "BROWM right on top of good ole Noah" doesn't mean I'm okay with roofies. Rocking out to Thriller doesn't mean I believe kids need molested. Enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't mean I like punching women. None of that even means I think the accusations are unfounded. (Some I do believe are unfounded or exaggerated, but that's also beside my point.)
Look at the current Presidential race. All these candidates are being judged, at least in part, on their personal lives instead of the qualifications for the job. Can you imagine being told you didn't get a customer service job because you didn't divorce your cheating husband? Not because you came into the interview and insulted the other interviewees, not because you refused to serve the poor or the ethnic, but for something that has no bearing on the job?
It's lunch time. If I go to Subway, it doesn't mean I'm okay with what Jared did. It just means I like them sandwiches!
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Thoughts on Public Bathrooms
Apparently some laws have been passed that state you have to use the restroom designated for the sex on your birth certificate. A major chain store also announced it was making all restrooms unisex. Heated debate rages all over social media and the news.
"Perverts will pretend to be transgender to get to our daughters." Do you think only male perverts exist, and that they only go after girls? Even if a pervert were to do this - as has happened - all he can do legally is "accidentally" expose himself. Anything else is covered under other laws. During a trial, the revelation of his birth certificate would make him in violation of this one. It is your job as a parent (or parent proxy) to protect the child from threats. If you are too busy to escort the kid to the restroom, that's on you.
Are we going to station guards at every restroom and require matching the physical evidence with the birth certificate? What if the two don't match? We send a person with a penis into the women's room anyway - refer back to the perv argument. What do you do when the "man" you've stopped proves to have both a vagina and a female birth certificate?
We have probably all, at some point in our adult lives, shared a public restroom with another adult bearing different genitals than ours. We never knew because they had the exterior appearance of our sex. They went into the stall and shut the door, just like we did. Or maybe you ignored the Restroom Closed For Cleaning signs and the janitor was using one of the toilets - that happened a lot when I was a janitor.
Why are they wasting time and money (taxpayer's money) on laws that make no sense and can't be enforced? I've not done the math, but I'm sure the salaries of these lawmakers earned while passing this nonsense is a lot more than 15 bucks an hour - you know, the amount useful people are greedy for wanting.
"Perverts will pretend to be transgender to get to our daughters." Do you think only male perverts exist, and that they only go after girls? Even if a pervert were to do this - as has happened - all he can do legally is "accidentally" expose himself. Anything else is covered under other laws. During a trial, the revelation of his birth certificate would make him in violation of this one. It is your job as a parent (or parent proxy) to protect the child from threats. If you are too busy to escort the kid to the restroom, that's on you.
Are we going to station guards at every restroom and require matching the physical evidence with the birth certificate? What if the two don't match? We send a person with a penis into the women's room anyway - refer back to the perv argument. What do you do when the "man" you've stopped proves to have both a vagina and a female birth certificate?
We have probably all, at some point in our adult lives, shared a public restroom with another adult bearing different genitals than ours. We never knew because they had the exterior appearance of our sex. They went into the stall and shut the door, just like we did. Or maybe you ignored the Restroom Closed For Cleaning signs and the janitor was using one of the toilets - that happened a lot when I was a janitor.
Why are they wasting time and money (taxpayer's money) on laws that make no sense and can't be enforced? I've not done the math, but I'm sure the salaries of these lawmakers earned while passing this nonsense is a lot more than 15 bucks an hour - you know, the amount useful people are greedy for wanting.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Labels
Back in my day, the same people we now say have Social Anxiety were simply Painfully Shy. When I was hospitalized for Dysthymia (a form of Clinical Depression), I explained it to my grandmother with the catch-all "Nerves". So have we, as a society, become weaker or stronger? Some say a medical diagnosis is better, that we've come to understand things better. Others call it the rather vulgar "pussification" of society. Honestly, I don't think it matters.
To me "She has Social Anxiety" isn't much different than "She's painfully shy". Either way, it means I'm going to give her some space and let her deal as she feels best. My grandmother went to her grave saying I had "Nerves" - a term that would cover a myriad of today's medical diagnoses. They say hers was a simpler time, and at least in this area, they are right. "Nerves" meant the person has trouble dealing with life, but that they weren't a danger. Come to think of it, that would cover Social Anxiety...
Coloreds become Blacks become African-Americans, because for some reason the earlier terms become offensive. (I am deliberately ignoring certain words, which were/are almost always used as insults. I've known folks to use those words innocently, but they were rare - and usually ignorant.)
Political labels change, too, as the parties evolve. The same party that fought giving the freed slaves rights after the Civil War is the one today championing their descendants. Theodore Roosevelt, the man behind the National Parks, belonged to the party that today puts money over nature.
I can't refer to myself as fat without people freaking out. Guess what, folks? I'm not quite five and a half feet tall and I average 200 pounds. You can use whatever label you like, but it has the same definition.
But I digress. Why do we feel the need to update our labels? My first example, I think, comes from the notion that a medical diagnosis is more likely to be respected. Words are symbols, and maybe they become tainted by association with folks who use them cruelly, like the swastika and the Rebel Flag?
To me "She has Social Anxiety" isn't much different than "She's painfully shy". Either way, it means I'm going to give her some space and let her deal as she feels best. My grandmother went to her grave saying I had "Nerves" - a term that would cover a myriad of today's medical diagnoses. They say hers was a simpler time, and at least in this area, they are right. "Nerves" meant the person has trouble dealing with life, but that they weren't a danger. Come to think of it, that would cover Social Anxiety...
Coloreds become Blacks become African-Americans, because for some reason the earlier terms become offensive. (I am deliberately ignoring certain words, which were/are almost always used as insults. I've known folks to use those words innocently, but they were rare - and usually ignorant.)
Political labels change, too, as the parties evolve. The same party that fought giving the freed slaves rights after the Civil War is the one today championing their descendants. Theodore Roosevelt, the man behind the National Parks, belonged to the party that today puts money over nature.
I can't refer to myself as fat without people freaking out. Guess what, folks? I'm not quite five and a half feet tall and I average 200 pounds. You can use whatever label you like, but it has the same definition.
But I digress. Why do we feel the need to update our labels? My first example, I think, comes from the notion that a medical diagnosis is more likely to be respected. Words are symbols, and maybe they become tainted by association with folks who use them cruelly, like the swastika and the Rebel Flag?
Monday, March 21, 2016
Political Subtleties
Before I met my friend, my experience with Anarchists was limited to those who call for a violent overthrow of the government. My friend patiently and respectfully explained to me that Anarchism, like all ideologies, has subdivisions. Those I had known are not representative of the large majority - most Anarchists practice what they call the Non Aggression Principle. They based their belief on the very idea that, if left alone by government, people will be able to live peaceably and help each other out voluntarily. The few jerks who won't will end up effectively banishing themselves.
Yet we see people freely slap the label Communist on Bernie Sanders. Communism and Socialism are closely related, yes. Both fall under the same ideological umbrella. Yet there are the same sort of subtle differences we find in Anarchism. Communism is to Socialism what those Violent Over-throwers are to Anarchy. They are the fanatics.
Fanatics exist in every group, be it political, religious, racial, sexual.... Islam has ISIS, Christianity has WBC... It is wrong to assume your neighbor Abdul wants to chop off your head because you ate a ham sandwich. It is wrong to assume Pastor Smith wants gays executed. I know Catholics who see birth control as a matter of conscience and accept the idea of abortion under certain circumstances, feminists who are happily married to men and even have children, lesbians who don't hate men and even raise straight children of both sexes.
If you are a member of any group (and who isn't), the proper response to an ignorant party is not to attack them. On any level. My own personal experience with Fanatic Anarchism might be "anecdotal evidence" and therefore a logical fallacy, but you aren't going to get anywhere by insulting me. I am willing to be convinced - said friend can vouch for that - but only by a respectful discussion.
And if you expect me to see subtle differences, you need to be willing to see them as well. Or you are guilty of a logical fallacy of your own, as well as of being a hypocrite.
Monday, March 7, 2016
First Ladies
Presidential elections are approaching, and with them yet another woman is going to find herself First Lady. Or maybe a guy, since we have a heterosexual female in the running. Bill might get out of it - we've had Presidents whose First Lady was a daughter or niece. I always feel for these women. They just can't catch a break.
Mary Lincoln thought the American people needed to see her as prosperous, to combat that whole Civil War bleakness. Instead they called her frivolous and wasteful. Nancy Reagan, a Hollywood woman, was also called these things because of her expensive tastes. Yet Michelle Obama is "cheap" for buying clothes most American women can afford. Barbara Bush, and to a lesser extent, her daughter-in-law Laura, were practical women and thus labeled frumpy. So... the First Lady is standing in her closet, knowing she's going to be mocked no matter what outfit she chooses.
It's become tradition that the First Lady choose a pet cause. Jackie Kennedy famously renovated and redecorated the White House, saving a good deal of history from ending up in a landfill. Yet it seems she's the only one to get proper credit for her efforts. Nancy Reagan went after drug abuse and "Just Say No" is laughed at. Hillary and Michelle get called all kinds of names for wanting actual regulations. Again, the poor First Lady is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
I'd hate to be in her shoes, whoever she may be. Because nothing she's going to do is going to be right. If she wears fancy clothes, she's a snob. If she's frugal, she has no sense of style. If she comes on too strong with her pet cause, she's a shrew. If she comes on not strong enough, she'll be laughed at and/or ignored. She'll be too old or too young. She'll have a scandalous past or she'll be boring.
Sometimes I think Rachel Jackson had the right idea - when her husband was elected, she promptly dropped dead.
Mary Lincoln thought the American people needed to see her as prosperous, to combat that whole Civil War bleakness. Instead they called her frivolous and wasteful. Nancy Reagan, a Hollywood woman, was also called these things because of her expensive tastes. Yet Michelle Obama is "cheap" for buying clothes most American women can afford. Barbara Bush, and to a lesser extent, her daughter-in-law Laura, were practical women and thus labeled frumpy. So... the First Lady is standing in her closet, knowing she's going to be mocked no matter what outfit she chooses.
It's become tradition that the First Lady choose a pet cause. Jackie Kennedy famously renovated and redecorated the White House, saving a good deal of history from ending up in a landfill. Yet it seems she's the only one to get proper credit for her efforts. Nancy Reagan went after drug abuse and "Just Say No" is laughed at. Hillary and Michelle get called all kinds of names for wanting actual regulations. Again, the poor First Lady is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
I'd hate to be in her shoes, whoever she may be. Because nothing she's going to do is going to be right. If she wears fancy clothes, she's a snob. If she's frugal, she has no sense of style. If she comes on too strong with her pet cause, she's a shrew. If she comes on not strong enough, she'll be laughed at and/or ignored. She'll be too old or too young. She'll have a scandalous past or she'll be boring.
Sometimes I think Rachel Jackson had the right idea - when her husband was elected, she promptly dropped dead.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Body Modification
A few years ago, my nephew made the choice to shave his head. I was horrified. To me, a shaved head meant Skinhead - racist, gay-bashing Neo-Nazi. Of course, he is of an entirely different generation and doesn't have those associations. What's this got to do with the topic at hand, you ask? Bear with me.
Tattoos and piercings are the subject of much debate with more of the younger generation entering the job market. To them, these things are a matter of choice and have no bearing on a person's job performance. To an extent, I agree with them. (I personally have no tattoos. I wear one ear ring in each lobe. I have considered ink, but the art I've decided on would be quite expensive, so it probably will never happen.)
The problem with body modification is one of perception, just like the shaved head. Most employers belong to my generation, one taught that these things are unprofessional. When I entered the work force, a visible tattoo or facial piercing made an applicant unemployable even as a janitor. The rules gradually relaxed - at one point I worked with a fellow who had (among other tattoos) an eyeball on his Adam's Apple. Which brings me to my next point.
Eyeball Man worked hard and got along with co-workers. He was the first to offer his jumper cables if your car wouldn't start. But I couldn't stop staring at that eye. It moved when he talked. In short, it was distracting. And he scared customers, usually the elderly and children, so he was on the overnight shift. His ink limited his options.
The same can be said for piercings. They don't stop you from working, from being a good person, or even from holding a PhD. But to draw attention to your self-expression by constantly sticking your tongue out and manipulating the stud through it, to wiggle the ring on your lip with the tongue or sucking it in and out of the hole, is distracting and unprofessional.
When I worked, nearly every job I had required a uniform. I used my ear rings to mark myself as an individual. But what would it say about me if I toyed with my ear rings the entire work day? Or if I insisted upon wearing life-sized human skulls? The same applies to tattoos and piercings. You have the right to individuality and others have the right to feel comfortable in your presence. It is possible to express yourself without being an ass.
Tattoos and piercings are the subject of much debate with more of the younger generation entering the job market. To them, these things are a matter of choice and have no bearing on a person's job performance. To an extent, I agree with them. (I personally have no tattoos. I wear one ear ring in each lobe. I have considered ink, but the art I've decided on would be quite expensive, so it probably will never happen.)
The problem with body modification is one of perception, just like the shaved head. Most employers belong to my generation, one taught that these things are unprofessional. When I entered the work force, a visible tattoo or facial piercing made an applicant unemployable even as a janitor. The rules gradually relaxed - at one point I worked with a fellow who had (among other tattoos) an eyeball on his Adam's Apple. Which brings me to my next point.
Eyeball Man worked hard and got along with co-workers. He was the first to offer his jumper cables if your car wouldn't start. But I couldn't stop staring at that eye. It moved when he talked. In short, it was distracting. And he scared customers, usually the elderly and children, so he was on the overnight shift. His ink limited his options.
The same can be said for piercings. They don't stop you from working, from being a good person, or even from holding a PhD. But to draw attention to your self-expression by constantly sticking your tongue out and manipulating the stud through it, to wiggle the ring on your lip with the tongue or sucking it in and out of the hole, is distracting and unprofessional.
When I worked, nearly every job I had required a uniform. I used my ear rings to mark myself as an individual. But what would it say about me if I toyed with my ear rings the entire work day? Or if I insisted upon wearing life-sized human skulls? The same applies to tattoos and piercings. You have the right to individuality and others have the right to feel comfortable in your presence. It is possible to express yourself without being an ass.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Inclusion Moving into Ridiculous
I recently postulated on a Facebook post that if Hollywood were to make a movie of Damnation Alley (not the bastardization they made in the 70s) they could ignore race and sex of the characters and cast Michelle Rodriguez as Hell Tanner. Nothing in the book requires that he be a white male, after all.
I'm all for diversity. Unless a character's sex, race, or religion is vital to the story, there is no reason for insisting that they have to be any particular one. Recently, there was a lot of fuss because Hermione Granger isn't a white woman in the latest "Harry Potter" thing. The books - and their author - never specify Hermione's race. I saw her as a white gal because I saw the first movie before reading the books.
I can think of twice I saw a movie in which a character got race-swapped from the book. In neither case was the race important to the story. And one of them was James Earl Jones. If they made a movie of my "Ghosts" and James Earl Jones wanted to play Merlin... OK, that's hyperbole, but JAMES EARL JONES!
Before Robotech.com killed the message boards, there were a lot of lively debates about the possible live-action movie. One of the issues was, of course, casting. Lynn Minmei is a Japanese/Chinese girl and her heritage is a part of her characterization - so she needs to remain that ethnicity. A certain couple has to remain male/female for story line purposes. Otherwise, I see no problem with James Earl Jones playing that white lady over there.
BUT... and you knew this was coming... To cast an actor in a role that's historically inaccurate is wrong. Yes, there were black slave owners in the antebellum Georgia, but if we remade Gone With The Wind, Scarlett's story is entirely different if we make her anything but a white female. If you did toss a black slave owner in there, certainly take into account how society would interact with him. Or her.
New Ghostbusters movie, in which they are all female and the eye-candy receptionist is male? I certainly hope they're making fun of themselves with this, because anything seriously feminist about it is way off base.
When casting agents compromise characters and settings in order to be "inclusive", they're actually defeating the purpose. Hell Tanner doesn't do anything a woman can't do. Zelazny's physical description is vague - Tanner could be any ethnicity. Making him a Hispanic female would be a good example of being inclusive.
But if the story calls for a certain race, a certain sex, and you ignore those realities, you have become the very thing you're working against. Will Smith as Hamlet is as badly miscast as Orson Welles was when he played Othello.
I'm all for diversity. Unless a character's sex, race, or religion is vital to the story, there is no reason for insisting that they have to be any particular one. Recently, there was a lot of fuss because Hermione Granger isn't a white woman in the latest "Harry Potter" thing. The books - and their author - never specify Hermione's race. I saw her as a white gal because I saw the first movie before reading the books.
I can think of twice I saw a movie in which a character got race-swapped from the book. In neither case was the race important to the story. And one of them was James Earl Jones. If they made a movie of my "Ghosts" and James Earl Jones wanted to play Merlin... OK, that's hyperbole, but JAMES EARL JONES!
Before Robotech.com killed the message boards, there were a lot of lively debates about the possible live-action movie. One of the issues was, of course, casting. Lynn Minmei is a Japanese/Chinese girl and her heritage is a part of her characterization - so she needs to remain that ethnicity. A certain couple has to remain male/female for story line purposes. Otherwise, I see no problem with James Earl Jones playing that white lady over there.
BUT... and you knew this was coming... To cast an actor in a role that's historically inaccurate is wrong. Yes, there were black slave owners in the antebellum Georgia, but if we remade Gone With The Wind, Scarlett's story is entirely different if we make her anything but a white female. If you did toss a black slave owner in there, certainly take into account how society would interact with him. Or her.
New Ghostbusters movie, in which they are all female and the eye-candy receptionist is male? I certainly hope they're making fun of themselves with this, because anything seriously feminist about it is way off base.
When casting agents compromise characters and settings in order to be "inclusive", they're actually defeating the purpose. Hell Tanner doesn't do anything a woman can't do. Zelazny's physical description is vague - Tanner could be any ethnicity. Making him a Hispanic female would be a good example of being inclusive.
But if the story calls for a certain race, a certain sex, and you ignore those realities, you have become the very thing you're working against. Will Smith as Hamlet is as badly miscast as Orson Welles was when he played Othello.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)