Touchers

When I talk to people, I am prone to touching their arms or hands.  I've been known to ambush hug people. (Not anymore, as I've realized that's crossing a boundary.)  There is no sexual intent.  I have a very real psychological need for nonsexual touch.  I think all humans do, but some of us more than others. 

There was a teacher in my middle school who was a toucher.  He never did anything overtly sexual, but people talked because he was always touching the students.  A hand on the shoulder, things like that.  Today he'd probably be reprimanded and maybe even fired.  That makes me sad.  We all could do with more benefit of the doubt.

I've never been one to bully children into hugging me. If I ask for a hug and the child declines, I'm okay with that.  If another adult takes offense, I defend the kid.  I can't do much if the kid gets scolded later, but I do what I can.  

Why not simply forgo asking?  Because I remember being a kid and no one wanted to hug me.  I treasured visits from my great-aunts because they hugged me.  My parents had a friend who let me sit on his lap and I did that well into my teens, until someone raised the question of appropriateness.  I've allowed "bad touch" because at least it was touch.  If the child in question is like I was, my request for a hug is a boon to them.  So I ask. 

Which leads me to my point, if I even have one.  There are kind ways to request boundaries from us touchers.  We will sometimes forget, particularly if we're emotional.  Please don't scream at us.  Please don't recoil as if a snake bit you.   We are harmless.  

Being "Woke"

 One thing I notice a lot lately is people complaining about TV shows and movies "going woke".  I can understand the complaints to a point.  If the work is historical, changing the demographics of the characters can drastically reduce the engagement of an educated audience.  Gone With The Wind gets a lot of hate for racism, but change any of Scarlett's demographics and the story does not work in a historically accurate setting.   

 I've opined in previous blogs about diversity for diversity's sake.  Tokenism is another term for it.  I think this is what a lot of the complainers are referring to. As writers are building the world of their fiction, diversity can happen naturally, as it does in the real world.  It doesn't need to be shoehorned in.  

There are shows I think of as having diversity for diversity's sake.  I just don't watch them.  If asked why I don't watch them, I would avoid using the word "woke" because that's become perceived as the cry of the -ist or the -phobe.  

All "woke" really means is aware of social injustice.  Not everyone who is woke is a fanatic about it, seeing the KKK around every corner.  Not everyone who feels a show or movie is diverse for the sake of diversity is a hater.  People, talk to each other.  Communicate in a respectful manner.  You might learn something. 

(And some of these fictional worlds were woke from the get-go, there was no becoming or going about it.  Just saying.)  

The Watcher on Netflix

 I'm into the true crime thing and one case that's always fascinated me is John List.  How does that have any bearing on the Netflix show about an unrelated case, you ask?  I will explain, I promise.  Oh, yeah, and SPOILER ALERT for the movie in question. 

The Watcher is an unsolved case from 2014.  A family bought a nice new home and started getting letters from someone calling themselves "the watcher".  Knowing they were being watched even by a harmless person would be creepy enough, but these letters escalated into talking about "young blood" and "what's in the walls".  The letters also claimed that watching the house is a family tradition - the letter writer's forebears did the same thing.  DNA testing on the envelope flaps revealed the writer to be female, but nothing more is known.  They moved out of the house and that was the end of that (to the best of my knowledge).

The John List case happened in the 1970s but he wasn't caught for nearly twenty years.  John List was a devout Lutheran who lived with his mother, wife, and three children.  He lost his job as an accountant, but pretended to go to work rather than tell his family.  He funneled money from his mother's accounts to cover the bills.  Eventually, he made some phone calls to establish that the family was going out of town for an extended period of time.  Then shot his wife and mom.  He shot two of the kids when they got home from school, then went to the third kid's game and shot him when they got home after.  He put all the bodies in one room (except Mom, she was too heavy and on the third floor), put on gospel music, and vanished.  Oh, and he cut himself out of all the family photos.  Also bear in mind his wife was Helen and his daughter was Patricia.  After the murders were discovered, there were rumors of teenaged Patricia being in a relationship with a teacher.  Letters left behind with the bodies indicated that his motive was to save their souls -- they were falling into sinful ways.  

Both real-life cases happened in the same town, but decades apart and otherwise there is no connection.  

Now the movie:  It's a fictionalized account of the 2014 case.  It starts out sticking largely to the facts -  Dean and Nora buy the place and move in.  They plan to renovate the kitchen and basement.  They have two children and a ferret.  And the letters start arriving.  At first, they dismiss it as a prank, but then the kids start hearing music from an intercom and the ferret is found in the upstairs hall with a crushed skull.  

Suspects include two of the neighboring families, alienated by Dean's hostile response to misunderstandings, the realtor - a college friend of Nora's who keeps pushing her to sell the house she just bought, a local teacher who is into old houses, and John List  Graff.  

John Graff used to live in the house. He was a devout Lutheran who lived with his mother, wife, and two children.  He lost his job as an accountant, but pretended to go to work rather than tell his family.  He funneled money from his mother's accounts to cover the bills.  Eventually, he made some phone calls to establish that the family was going out of town for an extended period of time.  Then shot his wife and mom.  He shot daughter Patricia when they got home from school, then went to the son's game and shot him when they got home.  He put all the bodies in one room, put on classical music, and vanished.  He cut himself out of all the family photos. His wife was Helen.  At one point, it's implied that Patricia was in a relationship with a teacher.  (Said teacher is later found dead, shot by a different gun.)  I'm particularly taken with the name List becoming Graph with just a spelling change.  Both are ways of sorting information. 

When Dean discovered this news, I had to pause the show and text a friend.   From there, it just kept getting more ridiculous.  The show, not the weak attempt to hide that this dude was John List.  

Because Graff removed his face from the family photos, no one knows what he looks like.  The neighbor couple is murdered, but not really.  The Dumbwaiter guy was totally normal until the same year Graff killed his family.  There are tunnels between the houses, a remnant from the Prohibition Era.  Toss in a false confession and some family drama (teen daughter, ya know).  

Had this show been advertised as a satire or parody, it would have lived up to the hype.  But it's supposed to be a thriller.  They never solve the case and leave lots of loose ends, probably for future seasons of the show.  Honestly, I'll probably watch.  It's hilarious. 

Bans and Boycotts

 I've probably pontificated on this topic before, but I'm frankly too lazy to check, so here we go. 

With the start of the school year, there is always a crop of news stories about local districts banning books.  In most cases, all that means is that a specific book has been removed from the school library.  Alarmists will tell you that these books are removed because of a racist agenda, or as a ploy to erase history from the public mind, but research into the specifics almost always lead to a parental complaint about sexual content.  (Which speaks to our strangely puritanical attitudes about sex, but I digress.)

I've said this before and I'm sure I'll say it again: A local regulation does not mean federal martial law is coming.  Some school somewhere doesn't want students to find out from them that Anne Frank had periods.  This does not mean that next week Joe Biden is going to kick down my door and take my copy of the book in question. 

This does not mean anyone is a Holocaust Denier or Anti-Semite.  If the book removed is Roots or Cujo, it probably isn't because of racism or a hatred of large dogs.  You won't find Twilight on my shelf, but that doesn't mean I hate any of the ethnicities or religious groups that might be in there.  

The bans these news articles are talking about aren't even really bans.  The library doesn't have it, but no one is likely to punish a student who gets a copy from Grandma.  Even if he totes it into the school and reads it at lunch. 

Closer to an actual ban is the thing they're calling Cancel Culture.  I know I've pontificated about this before, but it bears repeating.  We should totally boycott an entire entertainment franchise or store chain because its creator or CEO has committed an act we disapprove of?  I don't think so.

Religion (defined here as a personal belief system) and business should not mix - for either the company or the consumer.  For example, a certain company is known to support homophobic causes. Suppose we run them out of business.  Yay, we showed the homophobic CEO!  Then what happens?  How many people are going to be unemployed?  How many of those people are or have loved ones in the LBG+ community?  Boycotts hurt more than they help. 

I am not burning my books and merch from the franchises I love because the creator proves to be less than admirable.  For one thing, they already got my money when I bought the things, so I wouldn't be hurting them any! Consider the Harry Potter franchise - JKR has been running around saying some hateful things for quite some time.  Should we refuse to buy anything HP-related ever again?  Most of the movie cast has come forward and refuted her words - should they be punished by a loss of income?  Should we ignore the otherwise inclusive and inspiring message in the books?    I don't think so. 

Flawed people can make great art.  History is full of examples - most of the greats were some kind of hater, especially by modern standards. Sexual perversion is nothing new.  And there's always the question of context.   I'm not making excuses for hate - that's never cool when directed at entire groups.  I'm just saying that, if I boycott every business or franchise that's been linked to a jerk... I'd have to go live in a cave and live off roots and berries. 

Student Loans

 With all the fuss and bother going on about forgiving student loans, I feel the need to share my own student loan story.  I went "back to school" in my late twenties, majoring in Human/Social Services Technology.  It's a two year degree, meaning I could be working a decent job by the time I was 30. 

When I left high school, it was a time when the minimum wage was reasonably close to a sustainable lifestyle.  I had no shame in being a janitor, or a dishwasher, or a cashier.  It's all honest work and I believed I'd be able to make ends meet. 

I was trying to find the job where my work ethic would actually get me promotions and raises, instead of one where the dude who partied with the boss got promoted over me.  Meanwhile, in the larger world, the gap between a livable wage and the minimum wage kept growing.    My morale was high every time I started a new job, but favoritism and customer abuse killed it quickly.  (I'm not saying I'm totally blameless here - my Dysthymia had manifested itself and fed on job stress.  I made a lot of mistakes.)

When I finally got medication and therapy that let me cope, I decided that college would get me the sort of job I wanted.  Social Work seemed a good fit, and there was a two-year program at the nearby campus.  So I signed up, agreed to the loans needed (totally intending to pay them when the time came), and earned that degree.

My first job after college was washing dishes in a steakhouse.  While working, I applied for every social services job I could.  Some of those interviews took me into seedy neighborhoods (once a man tried to get into my car and I ran a red light to get away from him) and none of them hired me.  I was back to the minimum wage grind, but now I had a debt to pay.  I tried.  

I tried.  When I was making enough money to have anything left over after rent, I sent them something.  Something was never enough.  At one point, after having my hours cut, I had to have the bank block payments because they ignored my messages.  They knew my situation - I told them the truth, filled out all the forms for a payment plan, everything, but no.  "You make 500 a month?  Send us 400 or it's going into default."  Still, I had every intention of paying them somehow someday.  Most of my job-hopping was a constant quest to make enough money to pay the loan!  

Eventually, I was declared totally and permanently disabled.  I would receive monthly payments to live off of.  The first debtor I contacted was the Student Loan people, intending to set up a payment plan I could finally afford.  They canceled the loan.  Think about that:  The only way I could get out from under the loans for a two year degree was to become legally disabled.  A two year degree.  Only two years.  

At the time of my cancellation, most of what I owed was compounded interest.  Had they worked with me because I was un- or under-employed, I would have owed a small percentage of that total.  They could have allowed me to pay what I could, they could have suspended interest, something, but no.  What they did was call me at least once a day for over a decade.  What they did was accuse me of malingering.  So, yes, I support the forgiveness of student loans.  Had they treated me with anything resembling dignity and respect, I might think differently.    

 

Franchises Gone Wild

 Anyone who knows me, knows I am a fan of The Walking Dead.  What they may not realize is that I'm only a fan of the original show.  Not the spinoffs, not the movies they keep telling us are coming, just that one show.  Especially now that AMC has taken over and Robert Kirkman's vision is largely gone.  

The original showrunner was Frank Darabont, but Darabont wanted the zombies to be smarter and faster than Kirkman did.  As it was Kirkman's project, he won that battle.  You can see some "smart zombies" in Season One... using rocks to break windows, trying to turn doorknobs, and climbing fences.  The real-world explanation is Darabont, but I like to think those people were geniuses in life and a bit carried over into their undead state.  There's never been an in-universe explanation - until now, apparently. 

AMC's The Walking Dead Universe has introduced "variant cohorts" and is exploring the cause/cure of the zombie phenomenon... both things Kirkman flat refused to do.  The zombies were never the point of his vision.  AMC has Ashley-Cartered The Walking Dead.  (Ashley-Carter is my own verb for retcons that harm the original creator's vision.  It comes from the third author of the Falconhurst series of books and was my first experience with it.)  

AMC is flooding the market with TWDU projects.  They're trying to do in a single decade what took Star Wars and Star Trek decades.  To me, that's overkill, but overkill seems to be the thing these days.  Star Wars, Star Trek, and Marvel are all also doing it.  Trek has currently, I believe, four shows and the Abrams movies.  Star Wars has, I believe, three shows.  Marvel has shows, but their focus seems to be movies.  

From what I understand, most of the Trek projects are meant to be taking place in the same reality, making those shows a master class in Ashley-Cartering.  So many contradictions.... The Marvel Universe has embraced the notion of a multiverse to avoid that issue.  Star Wars seems to be managing to stay within the established universe except for Obi-Wan's memory issues in later life.  But I digress.  The focus here is meant to be on the overkill aspect.  

It seems unwise to flood the market.  Short term, you make piles of money.  Long-term, you lose your audience.  They will get sick of Spock and Spiderman and Obi-Wan Kenobi.  They will get sick of Daryl Dixon, even if he remains just one version of himself.  Flooding the market is just shooting yourself in the foot. 

Mixed Messages

 One thing that seems universal, and especially for those of us on a mental health journey, is the mixed message.  Some of them are comical - a man with a cigarette punishing his kids for smoking, for example.  But the ones I want to talk about today are the ones we get when trying to apply things we've learned in therapy to daily life. 

I do a lot of people-pleasing, also known as going along to get along.  I don't even form strong opinions about mundane things (believe it or not) in order to avoid conflict.  I do enjoy a good, civilized debate about important issues, but that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about "Where do we want to have lunch?"  

The home I grew up in was not conducive to disagreement.  If we were wrong about something factual, we were either stupid or lying.  I'm sure that played a large part in my love of research.   As for opinions,  I learned early on that Jeanie's opinion was trash.  None of my interests mattered, unless it happened to coincide with theirs. 

You may wonder what all this has to do with the Mixed Message.  You may think I've digressed.  I haven't, I promise.  Since I've learned to express those things that do matter to me, those old patterns create the mixed message.  Because others haven't broken with them.   

This is common with anyone on the road to Mental Health.  That's why family therapy is often recommended.  That's why addicts are encouraged to get a whole new group of friends.  Because if those around us oppose our new attitude, it's very easy to slip back into those old patterns.  They are comforting because we know them.  

But they are not harmless.  The behaviors that harm us, no matter what they may be, have harmed those around us.  If others aren't on the journey with us, but want us to heal, those messages are inevitable.  Because "I know I told you to stand up to people, but I didn't mean me" is a very real thing.  

Remembering Our Dead

Graveyards have good associations for me: Visiting the graves of her husband and son with my beloved grandmother, sledding at the rear of the Settler's Cemetery.  I found them tangible history, a solid reminder that those things happened to real people.  They're an excellent place to go if you just want to be alone and think - most people who see you will assume you are mourning and respect that.  

The family plot has gotten crowded in the years since I visited with Mamma.  In the intervening years, she was interred there.  Others were.  I used to think there was something wrong with me because, when I go there, the only memories that return to me are of Mamma.  Looking at Mother's headstone, for example, might bring back memories of the funeral.  No rich, full memories.  The family plot is a Mamma place and it doesn't matter who is buried there.

I find the memories come to me more in daily life.  A patch of daisies or a song on the radio evokes them more than a slab of marble with a name engraved.  I once wept in the grocery store over a display of Kit-Kat bars, for a man whose grave I've never even seen.  But in the graveyard? Not so much. 

Years ago, I made the decision to donate my body to science.  Explaining to one of my minions that this decision meant I'd likely have no grave, at least not one chosen by the family, she asked where she was supposed to go to remember me.  I gave her examples, but I know that when the time comes, she won't have to make any effort to remember me.  

She'll be weeping in the Barbie aisle over a woman whose grave she's never seen.  Because graves are for formal occasions and remembering our dead, really remembering them, is informal.