Another One "Gone Woke" That Already Was

 

I recently visited the home of Laura Ingalls Wilder in Mansfield, Missouri.  Where she wrote the Little House books that made her famous.  I'm sure my older sisters read those books to me until I was able to read on my own.

I remember when they made a TV show based on the books.  I remember being disappointed that TV Pa had no beard.  Growing up with the books, Pa's entire description was beard and blue eyes.  But I let that go.  Even as a child, I understood about compromise. (How could I not?  I had seven siblings!)

As it happened, Pa's facial hair was the least of the changes.  On a previous visit to Rocky Ridge, at some point in my twenties, I spent most of the time saying things like "that person did not exist" and "that didn't happen that way" to a TV-show fan.

That said, the television show clung to the values of the books.  Even the books were altered from historical fact.  Laura's recollections were rearranged to fit a juvenile fiction format, but she accepted that as long as her deeper truths, her values, remained.

I did post previously about the Laura Ingalls Wilder award for children's literature getting a name change, because of things in the books that are racist by today's standards.  Negro and Indian, in her time, were not racial slurs.  The minstrel show in a later book was a common event for the time. 

The entire family's lives are saved early on by a black man (historical documents tell us he was Dr. George Tann) and the Ingalls family demonstrates compassion for the Osage of Kansas even as Ma fears them.  When the old Indian warns the citizens of De Smet about the deadly winter storms of 1880-1881, his knowledge is respected.  

There have been countless other LIW projects. But the books and TV show are the benchmarks. 

Netflix is producing a new show based on the books.  The town is Independence, Kansas, which lines up with the third book in the series.  The actresses playing Laura and Mary are eleven and fourteen, which closer to the fifth book.  Carrie doesn't seem to exist, which lines up with none of the books.  Dr George Tann exists, consistent with book three.  So already they've shattered any continuity with reality or the books' timeline.  

As for the values that Laura insisted upon?  People are complaining that the show's "gone woke".  How dare they push pretty much the same values Laura did, that Michael Landon did!  The details of the Ingalls' history may be distorted, but the values look to be holding and I see nothing historically inaccurate in the broad strokes.

I gotta laugh so I don't cry.  Or get angrier than is good for me. 

Bears In The Woods

 I really did try not to hop on this bandwagon.  And I'm not hopping on for the reasons many might think.

In case you've been in a cave or on a desert island... someone made a video asking women who they would rather run into if alone in the woods - a man or a bear.  Most of the women replied that they'd prefer the bear.  Reasons given included wildlife's natural inclination to leave you alone if you leave them alone and the fact that a bear will only maul or kill you.  (Bear ain't gonna hold you hostage and do unspeakable things to you.)

My first response was bear because if I'm out in the woods, I'm hoping to see some wildlife.  

Yes, demographics support the point the video was making.  I am not disputing this.  I'm not even going to trot out my "not even most" logic (see previous blog post titled the same) to defend the men.  The women who chose the bear had valid reasons.

I've not seen the video in question, but I'm willing to bet it is edited.  Selectively edited.  I could splice together a video "proving" all my siblings like me best by questioning each of them, then taking out everything that contradicts my claim.  So... how many women chose the man and were edited out?  

The scenario that came to my mind was one I've been in many times:  Hiking a trail and falling behind my group because they are all younger and healthier.  (I'm not foolish enough to go alone very far into any woods a bear might pop out of.)  So even if the bear or the man behaved in a threatening manner, I'd have a weapon - my hiking stick - and others nearby to help me.  

What I find interesting is the number of people who, when given a third option, choose a woman.  That's seated in gender roles, which would require a whole other blog post.  I'd still choose the bear if coming from a place of fear. Humans are  more to be feared than any animal.  Even Cujo and Cocaine Bear were honest about their intentions.  

It's not so much a condemnation of men as it is of society.  I understand choosing the bear because if it mauls me, even if I was trying to take a selfie with the bear's cubs, everyone will blame the bear.  That does not happen enough when a man attacks a woman.

Small Town

Jason Aldean may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I don't believe he's advocating lynch mobs.  I'll clarify. 

First:  Pairing footage from a BLM protest gone bad with those lyrics?  Incredibly ignorant move.  Small towns, particularly in the south, have historically dealt with black "troublemakers" by way of a noose.  Jason Aldean may not have made that connection because he isn't and never was black.  He didn't grow up being warned about Sundown Towns or Emmet Till.  But ignorance is not malice, people.  

Second: Jason, dear, they do have a point.  A simple "Oh crap I didn't realize" could have gone a long way to defuse the situation.  There should be no shame in admitting your ignorance or your error.  I've said and done a lot of things from in my straight white ignorance - and usually been forgiven when I admitted it.  

Third: It's more reasonable to believe the entire thing is a publicity stunt.  The song has been out for a while, but few seemed to notice until the video was released. Jason Aldean just happens to be opening a bar/restaurant the same summer.  I'm more inclined to think he's greedy than ignorant or racist.  

Fourth: Jason Aldean is a city boy.  He's got no idea about small towns, especially the ones with a church on every corner.  The list of people who died because they tried something in a small town is growing every day.  There is a tragic drive in small towns to conform.  Especially in towns with strong political or religious leanings.  That's what killed Brandon Teena and Matthew Shepard.  That's what got the West Memphis Three convicted of murder. 

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.    

 

Stay At Home

I'm seeing a lot of news stories about how so few Americans are staying at home during this pandemic. One story is using cell phone trackers and defining compliance as staying within a five mile radius of home.  Another is unclear on how the data is gathered, but seems to be defining it as staying on your own property.  I could go on, but these two examples are sufficient to make my point.

Very few of us are able to never leave their property.  We all have essential errands.  Essential workers usually drive farther that five miles to do their jobs.  Grocery store pick-up services are becoming very popular, but those using said services still need to go (often more than five miles) pick the stuff up.

My grocery and doctor are roughly 15 miles from home.  In opposite directions.  I'm definitely in violation according to most of these reports.  I go to the store twice a month and the doctor every three to six months, depending upon my test results.  Most of my other errands are within that five mile limit and I combine errands in the same area into a single trip.  That was my usual pattern long before COVID-19.

I'd rather find my own substitute for a 45 ounce Blue Bonnet than further burden the overworked and underpaid. If  my choice to shop for myself, even with precautions like a mask and wet-naps, makes me a horrible person, then I'll own it.

*
There's also the question of how your area defines the order.  A small family group was in the local park when I ran to the pharmacy.  A handful of boys on the basketball court were at least attempting to stay six feet apart, playing Horse.  A single teenager on a bicycle practiced dumb teenage stunts.  None of these people were in violation.   Yet, according to most of these news stories, every one of us is part of the problem.

*

When you see a news story like this, I urge you to think for a moment.  How is the study in question defining compliance?  How are they gathering the data?  Where are all these people going, if everywhere and everything is closed?

The same is true of stories about those who are arrested for not complying.  Regardless of your feelings about the entire situation, a man who was arrested "alone in the ocean" was actually charged with trespassing on a closed public beach.  A father who was cuffed "in front of his daughter" refused to identify himself to the police.  He had a right to do so, yes, but the fact of the matter is this:  He was not charged with anything to do with Social Distancing or Stay-At-Home.

Most of us are complying to the best of our ability, according to what our areas have ruled.  Most of the police and even politicians are not going full Hitler on us.  The newspapers are just reporting what sells.  If we fail to use the critical thinking skills we either evolved or had handed to us by some deity, that's our failing.

Marginalized

Mayor Pete (one of the fellows running for president) said that being gay helps him to understand what black folks go through.  I'm not gonna weigh in on him, his policies, or any of that.  I just want to talk about this specific error in his thinking.

Yes, being marginalized will give you some idea of what others experience.  I've spend my whole life on and off Welfare and now I'm on SSDI.  So I understand about people judging and about getting the stink-eye.  But I can't really understand being black because - simple fact - I'm white.  Each marginalized group has their own struggles.

I understand what it's like to have a store detective follow me around, but not because of my skin color.  I've gotten snide comments for my choice of partner, but not because it was another gal.  A person of color who has been fortunate enough to have never drawn benefits isn't going to understand the shame of whipping out that Food Stamp card. 

Mayor Pete wasn't lying.  Being marginalized, in any manner, does help us to understand each other.  To a point.  He's a rich white boy, so obviously he's not going to get what the poor, the people of color, or the women specifically deal with.  That doesn't make him evil.  It doesn't make any of us evil.  Just human.  And that's okay.

OK, Boomer

I just had a long conversation about politics with a teenager.  I'm either late Boomer or early GenX, depending on who you ask.  He's Gen Z (Post-Millennial).  According to the labels, we should be at each other's throats.  We were not.  This will blow the collective mind of those who allow labels to divide us.

This applies to all the labels, be it "Liberal" or "Female" or "Catholic" or "Gay".  But for the sake of being concise, I will focus on the generation gap.  "Respect your elders" has become "OK Boomer".  "From the mouths of babes" has become "Damn millennial".  And it disgusts me. 

Their world is quite different from mine, and from what the world was when I was their age.  That does create differences.  But I stand by my assertion that there are more similarities than differences in all of us.  They have friends and family, as do I.  They have the same bodily functions.  They have hearts and minds, most of them good ones.

The tendency to allow differences to divide us isn't new.  I think it's fair to blame most of history's wars on it.  The axiom about not mentioning religion or politics in social situations is rooted in it.  We can't, as so many people do, blame it on anything more recent than the saber-toothed tiger.  Blame isn't really the issue, anyway.  The issue is us.  Our behavior.

The conversation that led to this blog is a good example.  The Boy expressed the opinion that  a certain celebrity would be a viable candidate for the presidency.  I said I think he's not because he's not a natural born US citizen.  The Boy thought he was.  Instead of calling each other names, we researched it.  When we discovered I was correct, we discussed how the man could become a viable candidate, which gave me a chance to educate a bit.  I wasn't familiar with the guy, and The Boy educated me a bit.  Neither of us dismissed the opinion of the other.  Neither of us called the other names.

The generation gap is our fault, people.  We don't respect them but expect them to respect us and respect is a two-way street.  Labeling one another is fine, it helps keep our mental files in order, but there are limits.  We're all human, with all the things that make us so, and we're all carrying around a myriad of labels.  If you don't want to be dismissed for one of your labels, don't dismiss others for theirs.

Shaming

I keep seeing news stories about people being "shamed".  Mom-shamed, fat-shamed, everything-under-the-sun-shamed.  Setting aside issues with so-called journalists using this type of informal language, I want to address a certain subset of these stories.  The ones in which the person is "shamed" but then they "clap back" and triumph.

If I try to kill someone and they fight me off, I don't get arrested for murder.  I get arrested for attempted murder.   These headlines should say "XXXX shuts down attempted shaming" instead of "XXXX gets mom-shamed and claps back".   Not only is that accurate, it's more concise.

I suppose I can forgive the casual language in human interest stories, but this one makes me giggle every time.  Maybe I'm being pedantic.  I should be glad they aren't spreading exaggerations of what politicians did or said.  But instead, I'm reporter-shaming.  I wonder if any of them will clap back.

Amendment Number Two

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As with most political issues, I'm very middle-of-the-road on gun control.  I have friends on both sides of this debate and can understand both points of view.  I think the first thing we need to do is look at the language and historical context of the amendment itself. 

A well regulated Militia: Regulated means "Controlled or Supervised by means of rules and regulations" and Militia has several meanings that might be applied here.  It can be a civilian military force, a rebel force that opposes a regular army, or all able bodied citizens eligible for military service.  

Being necessary to the security of a free state:  We need it to keep our hard won freedom.  

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms: "The People" is the crux of this section.  The People means all Americans, collectively.  Keep and bear arms means have and use guns. 

Shall not be infringed: Infringing on something is limiting or undermining it.

Paraphrased into more modern terminology, it says "Since we need a sort of civil army in case our government becomes oppressive, we shouldn't limit the collective American right to own and have guns."  Simple enough.  

But... and you know there is at least one... Is telling individuals they can't have an Uzi infringing upon The People's rights?    Is any given civilian a well regulated militia?  This is where the debate rages.  (Not that an actual debate would rage, but I digress.) 

Any comments on this blog or on links to this blog that fail to retain a civilized tone 

WILL BE DELETED. 

1. "No one needs an assault rifle."  Of course not, in normal day-to-day life.  No one needs Barbies, but I have the right to keep and bear them!  Yes, Barbie is not known for killing dozens of people in minutes, but bear with me.  I'll address that.

Remember the historical context, too.  The Founding Fathers want us to be able to stand against the government if it becomes oppressive.  To do that, we need similar weaponry and skills. To fulfill the desires of the Founding Fathers, We The People do indeed need an assault rifle.

2. "Barbies can't kill people like these guns can."  Of course not.  The analogy can be made with things that have that capability.  Cars driven into a crowd, for example.  Shall we advocate the banning of motor vehicles?  

3. "You don't care about the murdered" and "You wanna take my hunting rifle".  All of my gun-guys care about those who were killed and most of my non-gun-guys volunteer to take any leftover venison you might have.  All these statements are is parroting of propaganda.  The NRA in particular is really good at convincing people that any gun control at all is only the first step in a dastardly plot to disarm us all totally.  That's called Slippery Slope Logic and I was warned against it in high school. 

The Crux Of The Matter  

I try not to have opinions on matters I know little about.  Before forming an opinion, I become Research Whore (cue superhero music) and use sources from as many sides of the issue as I can find. My self-educated, but considered, opinion follows:

1. Any given individual is not a "well regulated militia". Chuck Norris, maybe, but I digress again.... Any given individual is not The People. 

2. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow me to incite riots.  Freedom of Religion doesn't let me commit human sacrifice.  Even "the pursuit of happiness" is limited... no matter how happy it might make me, there are things the law says I can't do without punishment. No reasonable human being believes any of those things are infringements, as they are needed for public safety.  

3. Allowing only screened and trained adults of sound mind to own weaponry is in keeping with what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Well-regulated means rules are applied.  Militia means trained and organized in a group. 

4. Most of the mass shootings that spur this debate happen in "gun free" zones.  Would the inevitable scofflaw be so willing to open fire in a public place if, for all they knew, most of the intended victims were packing heat themselves?  

5. In summary, the well regulated militia called for by the Founding Fathers can simply be a group of everyday citizens that have proven themselves capable of defending The People. Those citizens, and only those citizens, should be permitted to bear arms anywhere they go. 

Mermaids

Oh, dear god, y'all!  First things first, not everyone objecting to the casting of the live-action Ariel are doing it for racist reasons.  At least, not that they're aware of.  Some people just don't like change and would be complaining if ANYONE but a blue eyed ginger got the role.  (Personally, I'm just upset that Divine can't play Ursula.) Put on your thinking caps, y'all, we're going in.

POINT: In the original tale, the mermaid is described as having skin "like a rose leaf".  So she was green? The mermaid also dies at the end, so there's that....

POINT: Disney named their mermaid after a male character in Shakespeare's The Tempest.  They gave her red hair for artistic reasons - something about wanting not-a-blond and brunette being hard to animate underwater, if I recall correctly.    There's also something about her being the only redhead in her family, but I'm not sure what version of the tale this came from.  Disney changed the ending.  Ariel is not, and never was, the original.

POINT: In historical sightings - and yes, I have a book here to back me up - merfolk have been described as follows:  Roaring. Scaled even in the human section. Having green hair.  Long green hair. Having purple blood. Mossy hair. Black or tawny skin. Different colors on belly and back. Gray.

I've listed only the descriptions that differ from the European-based archetype.  One description even says they are "frequently taken for Indian women bathing" until the tail is seen. 

POINT:  We're talking about nearly universal folklore.  Cultures all over the world have mermaids, sirens, lorelei, naiads, ri...  I could go on but you get the idea.  Merfolk come in all the same colors as humans.  And a few others if you believe the reported sightings.

POINT: Ariel is a Disney character and they can change her up any way they want. 

I personally won't be seeing the live action movie.  I just don't care for live action versions of classic cartoons.  The only live action Disney remake I've seen was Beauty and the Beast.  I only watched it because I wanted to see how it was possible to make it any more obvious Lefou was in love with Gaston. 

Bugs

It seems that every day I see at least one post on my social media about "This place has bugs!  Don't go there!"  I'm actually a little jealous of the ignorance of those posting such things.  Yes, it is possible that the place has an infestation, but there is no need to engage in possible slander and/or libel, especially if the situation has been handled.  Restaurants in particular go through periodic inspections and any sign of infestation is dealt with ASAP or the Board of Health will close them down.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told not to eat "there" because someone saw a roach there once.  Never mind the excellent reports the Board of Health gives the place, the apparent cleanliness, and the fact that I personally have seen no evidence of critters.  Never mind that the manager of the place either was not informed or dealt with the situation appropriately.  Just don't eat there ever because someone may or may not have seen a roach there.

A roach can climb into the bag of a schoolchild, ride to school in comfort, crawl out later.  From there, it gets into someone else's bag.  That person stops at the store on the way home, the roach crawls across the floor, up a cart, and into yet another bag.  Shopper stops at a local diner for a quick bite and the roach is now in a restaurant.  Probably gonna die soon, though, because public buildings and businesses use pest control.  That bug was in a home, a school, a grocery, and a restaurant - all in one day.  They get around, is what I'm saying.  All insects do.

Then there's the question of identification.  I was once shown a "bed bug" that looked nothing like a bed bug.  The person who identified this horribly deformed bed bug proceeded to tell anyone who would listen all about it.  Don't go there, she said, they got bed bugs. Even after the place was cleared by pest control professionals.  (I'm pretty sure the bug in question was actually a mayfly.)

Oh, and every red bump that appears on you after being in a public place isn't a bed bug bite.

Fraud is always fun.  I could use a stock photo of some sort of vermin and claim I took it in my hotel room (the white background is the sheet or wall).  I could falsely claim the management laughed in my face when I showed them the horrible infestation.  I could go all over social media making these claims and even people who do not know me, who have never even heard of me, are telling folks about the Hotel Filth.

I have no doubt many of those sharing these things have good intent.  Just please, everyone, stop and think before you hit share.  Are you sure this isn't an over-reaction?  A mistake?  An outright lie?  You could be ruining someones reputation, even their livelihood.  What if the accuser was talking about your workplace, your school, your home?

Invisible Issues

I saw an article - if you could call it that - titled something like "Five Things I Do When People Say I Don't Look Sick".  I don't know if it was meant to be funny or if this writer was legitimately complaining, but the thing made me angry on behalf of those who say "you don't look sick".  The things this writer does when people say that?  Eye roll, heavy sigh, etc.

If someone is honestly surprised to find out I'm ill, that's a compliment.  It means I'm doing a good job of coping.  An appropriate response would be "Thank you."  Not an eye roll.  Not a heavy sigh.  Not an etc.

I have actually had the following exchange: "Why are you on Disability?"  "I'm crazy." "You don't look crazy."  My response was not to get mad at him, but to chuckle and make a joke.  Something about leaving my straitjacket at home. My lack of eye rolls and heavy sighs led to a respectful discussion of Dysthymia.

Granted, my use of the word crazy is hyperbole.  It's a throwback to the early days of my diagnosis, when mental illness still carried a huge stigma.  I dealt with the stigma through hyperbole and humor.  One job I had, my co-workers nicknamed me the Psycho Dish Lady.  (I was a dishwasher.)  They also felt comfortable coming to me with questions about mental health issues.

Yes, sometimes people are attacking when they say "you don't look sick" or "you don't look disabled".  I'm not claiming that never happens.  But ignorance is not malice. If I get mad or even just annoyed, I'm closing down lines of communication.  This can be a teaching moment, if I  handle it well.

When dealing with the ignorant - and we're all ignorant about something - the worst course of action is to put them on the defense.  Even the jerks can be reached if handled well.

This doesn't just apply here, either, but in any area.  I've been called a racist because I said or did something in ignorance.  I've been called a homophobe for joking with my gay friends. I've even been asked to sign a petition banning a T-shirt that I owned.   Those who assume the worst about me, especially repeatedly, are no longer in my life.  And it's their loss.

Eye rolls, heavy sighs, etc, are counterproductive.  All they do is insult the well-intentioned.  Kindness and humor work a lot better and open the lines of communication.   The writer of this piece isn't helping any one's situation.

Abortion

Yep, I'm going there.  The narrative on this subject is driving me even crazier than I already am. 

My personal feeling about the subject?  Those days are behind me now, but the only way I would have even considered abortion would be if the Grim Reaper is involved with or without the procedure.  For any other circumstance, I much prefer the other options. 

"What about a girl that's been raped or in the case of incest?"  Personally, I'd see the former as a blessing in disguise, but I understand that many women would not, could not.  Generally speaking, a child of incest will be healthy, unless it's multi-generational.  (See pretty much any royal family in history for examples.)  In either of those cases, if the mother can't or won't keep the child, I'd recommend adoption. 

"The Bible says..."  First things first, what any holy book says has no bearing on the law in the USA.  But I will refer you to Leviticus 27:3-7 and Exodus 21:22-25 (a child's life has little or no value) and to Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, and Ezekiel 37:5-6 (life begins at the first breath).  If it's a sin, that's between her and God. 

"Science has proven life begins at conception."  No, it has not.  It's proven that your DNA sequence is human at conception.  Everyone in the graveyard has a human DNA sequence, but we're under no delusion that they are alive.  No one can definitely say when abortion becomes murder. 

"What if it was you, or your daughter?"  I've had pregnancy scares.  I've seen some of my friends and minions (admittedly not daughters) through pregnancy scares.  Only once did I accept abortion as a option, since her life was endangered.  But ultimately it isn't my call.  It's the pregnant person's call, and federal law has already supported her right to an abortion (Roe vs Wade). 

"Women don't want babies, they should keep their legs together".  That's just laughable.  Rape aside, I'm willing to bet very few abortions are performed on women who never used contraception. 

"She should put it up for adoption if she don't want it." I agree.  But I'm not the law.  If I was the law, and was arrogant enough to outlaw everything I disapprove of, you wouldn't be happy. Trust me on this.

And on a final note:  To the best of my knowledge, none of these "bans" are actual bans.  A 12 year old who got gang raped at a family reunion probably can get an abortion.  Since they are state laws, none of them affect the entire nation.  Know what you're talking about before getting all up in my face. 

The Whole Picture

Look at the image above.  Can you tell me what the picture is?  Can you tell me what any given individual piece is?  Of course not.  My asking you to do so is just silly.  Yet we do similar things every day.  To our fellow human beings.

One of the big stories in the news is "the MAGA kid".  Given the current political climate, the conclusion most of us jumped to was a reasonable one, but apparently we were wrong.  To what degree we were wrong remains to be seen.  But that video is just one piece of the puzzle.  

As more of the puzzle is assembled, the big picture is very complex.  I do stand by my description of the boy's expression as a smirk, though, although I'm no longer certain why he's smirking. 

In essence, we picked up a single puzzle piece and decided what the entire picture was.  

****

I see this a lot in smaller ways, every day.  Pretend you see the following:  A middle aged woman is checking out at Wal-Mart.  Within the purchases, you see a Barbie doll  and a Nerf gun.  Who is the doll for?  The gun?  

Look at a picture and write a story about it.  That's one of my favorite writing exercises.

The tendency to do this - to fill in the rest of the picture - is not something to be ashamed of.  It's hard wired into the human brain.  But we gotta be careful not to let it get the best of us.  Remain open to more information.  And, you know, don't go on a uninformed rampage.  That we should be ashamed of. 

Blades and Books

When my minions were little, they watched educational TV shows.  The specific show changed depending on the minion (after all, the oldest is now in her 40s and the youngest is currently in the womb) but every single one of them had the same game.  One of these things is not like the other.

Gillette has a new ad campaign that focuses on how men should teach their sons (and help each other) be "the best a man can get".  Don't punch each other out.  Don't force yourself on others of either sex.  Basically, just be a better human being.

People who can't tell why a banana is different from a monkey, a walrus, and a horse are in an uproar.  Gillette is attacking men!  The feminists have taken over!  Run for the hills!  Times like this are why adjectives exist.  Masculinity is fine, y'all.  Toxic - that's an adjective - masculinity is not.

The behaviors addressed in the ad apply to either sex.  But society has dismissed them when men do them.  Boys will be boys, right?   That's the entire point of the ad.  But man, have I seen some crazy responses.  One guy posed his children with guns.  (Well, the boys.  The girl was holding a flower.  But I digress.)  "I'll raise my kids how I want, you stupid razor company."   Did Gillette tell you not to teach your kids gun safety?  (Did Gillette tell you not to foist medieval gender roles on your daughter? Oops, digressed again.)  Because I missed that part.

If you use a Gillette razor, your penis is not going to vanish.  Unless you're using it very wrong.

*****

I discovered organizing guru Marie Kondo, or at least her philosophy, a long time ago.  She's in the news now for apparently ordering all of us to toss our books.

My books "spark joy" for me.  Therefore, Marie Kondo said I can keep them. Not that she's the boss of me, anyway.  God knows I ignore that advice about neat rows in my sock drawer.

In conclusion, let's play a round of that game.  Which is different: A suggestion, a hint, a bit of advice, or an order? 

Writers' Agendas

"I'm sick of this show pushing its liberal agenda on us."  "Why can't they just tell a story without cramming their conservative politics up our noses?"  "That book series is a lot of propaganda."

Anyone who has been in a High School or College literature class can tell you about having to psychoanalyze writers.  What is the significance of Harry Potter's glasses?  Why do they run through a series of rooms in The Mask of The Red Death?  How does Dracula illustrate the sexual repression of the Victorian era?   That analysis of the author's psyche is not a lot different from seeking out the agenda.

Everyone has an agenda.  Speaking for myself, as a fiction writer, I don't deliberately plant mine into my stories.  But it leaks in there.  My stories tend to focus on large, loving families.  I put together couples who fit, not really caring about their race or sex.  I don't set my stories in large cities.  I never thought much about those things - I was just enjoying my chosen role as story teller.

I've been guilty of diversity for diversity's sake - which led to the happy accident of Olivia Ross.  My white heterosexual male Owen became an Amerasian* lesbian and for some reason (buried deep in my psyche) this new incarnation blossomed into the rich character Owen never was.  Olivia also taught me not to force these things.  A diverse cast of characters is good, but only if they can bloom as Olivia did.  She isn't "the lesbian" or "the Asian".  She's Olivia.

But I digress.  My point is this - what so many today are calling the writer's agenda is nothing more than their subconscious mind leaking into the tale.  If two characters fit as a couple, it doesn't matter to me what color they are or what genitalia they're packing, so I write them together.  Is that pushing my liberal agenda on my readers?  If my characters go hunting, am I screaming in reader's faces about the Second Amendment?

There are writers out there actively pushing agendas.  It would be foolish to claim otherwise.  I've found that, in that case, the story telling suffers.  All the characters are stereotypes.  Couples that make no sense hook up.  Those writers lose viewers/readers.  I often think that George Orwell didn't sit down to make a comment on Big Government.  If he had, I doubt 1984 would be the classic it is.

A final bit of advice - if you don't like the way the story is going?  Put down the book or change the channel.



*Not sure what the current "correct" term would be.  Olivia has a white American father and a Korean-born mother.  I intend no offense to anyone by my use of this term.  This is the term I imagine Olivia herself using.

Baby It's Cold Outside

People are calling for a ban of a classic song based on their own personal interpretation of the lyrics. 

"Baby, It's Cold Outside" is basically a conversation between a man and a woman, one in which she thinks she should go home and he wants her to stay.  While some of the lines can be problematic ("what's in this drink") it really does boil down to our own interpretation. 

Can it be seen as him sexually harassing her and possibly setting her up for date rape?  Yes.  Can it be seen as both of them wanting more time together and her being concerned about gossip?  Yes.  It's all a matter of interpretation, and if we see something problematic in it, why not use it as a teaching moment? 

My sister loathes "Santa Baby" because of the singer's obvious greed.  Others say it sexualizes Santa because the singer is using her feminine wiles on him.  (Santa's not allowed to be sexual?  Poor Mrs. Claus)  These people have, for decades, simply turned the station.

I hate "Blue Christmas" because, to me, it's a guilt trip.  You go on and have fun - I'll sit in the corner and eat wet cigarette butts. If you hear nothing more than "I miss you", that's fine.  That's probably the actual intent of the song.  But what I hear is what I hear. So I just turn the station.

Does "Rudolph The Red-Nose Reindeer" imply bullying is okay?  Does "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" support the Patriot Act?  "12 Days of Christmas" has human beings as gifts - slavery, anyone?  Should anything be banned because of what you or I read into it? 

It's not like any of these songs are coming right out and saying these things.  We're reading into them, as human beings do, and even if they did...  this is called a teaching moment. 

He Said/She Said

Yet another famous person is being accused of rape or uninvited groping or similar misconduct (sexual or otherwise).  People who have never been in the victim's situation, obviously, can't understand why they didn't report it at the time.  Why they didn't report then is less the issue in my mind than this:  Why are they reporting now?

Rape victims in particular are reluctant to come forward.  There's a lot of shame, a lot of emotional trauma involved.  Some of us (yes, us) even feel we are somehow to blame.  Again, I'm not questioning the lack of reporting at the time.  I'm questioning why report years, even decades, later?

Sometimes they say it's because he is now in a position of power that she fears will endanger others.  Sometimes it's because they only recently recovered the memories or got up enough guts to speak out. Those are valid reasons.  

But the physical evidence is likely long gone.  There's the question of remorse - has the attacker, quite frankly, learned better in the intervening years?  The people who wouldn't believe you then are less likely to believe you now.  The shame, the self-blame, is going to be multiplied by the Court of Public Opinion.  Unless you can stand with a group of his other victims, or with witnesses, why report it at all?  

That's what I can't understand about these reports. 

*Technically, what happened to me was not rape.  But neither are many of the incidents celebrities are being accused of, so I'm including myself here.

** My use of  "he" and "she" are not intended to imply only males victimize only females.  It's simply to simplify the language.

Representation

Lots of talk about minorities being represented in movies and television, on both sides of the issue.  I've never had to deal with my race being under-represented, but I fall into lots of other categories that are.  I'm female, poor, rural, mentally ill, and even left-handed. 

Besides stereotypes, which I don't really mind if they are meant in good humor, I saw very little of those groups in my mass media.  I still have trouble finding realistic models of some of them, but I blame that more on Hollywood Logic than anything else.  (We had ten people in a three bedroom, one bath house.  Can you imagine seeing that on TV as a realistic scenario?)  

Granted, the lefty thing isn't much of an issue.  The stigma was largely gone by the time I started school, but my older sister had teachers trying to make her use the "correct" hand, so it hadn't been gone long.  Imagine my delight when I realized (with the release of Twilight Princess on the Wii) that LINK is a lefty!  Most players are righties and the way the Wii is set up, his being a lefty was problematic for them.  There was a bit of a controversy.  

Until recently, the mentally ill were played for laughs if they weren't the bad guys.  Now even my limited consumption of mass media gives me a few "crazy but useful" characters.  Walter Bishop (Fringe) is a wonderful example.  I am nowhere near as crazy as he is, but I identify with the regrets he lives with and with forgetting his limitations until they slap him in the face. 

Rural...  well, in my day that was limited to The Beverly Hillbillies.  The rural folk I see now are well rounded characters.  Television is rather limited to the urban and suburban settings because there are simply more stories, more drama, in those place. 

The poor, though...  well, see my previous comment about Hollywood Logic.