Traditional Values

I've been watching a lot of The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie lately.  Then I saw something about someone (Netflix?) rebooting Little House and, of course, there they were... the pearl-clutching army in the comments worried about THE WOKE AGENDA is gonna ruin it.  

I got news for y'all.  If this happens, and you don't like it, nobody says you have to watch.  I stopped watching the original TV show when they decided to divert from the "facts" of the books.  Mary never married and Albert didn't exist.  That's how you deal with offensive TV shows.  

Anyway, that got me to thinking about the question of how these wholesome shows might have handled certain topics. 

 I realized Little House did handle a lot of the topics.  Mary's blindness gave them the vehicle to show that the disabled are not so different from the abled.  They brought in nonwhites from time to time and, again, focused on the similarities more than the differences. Nellie married a nice Jewish boy.  I have come to the conclusion that, given the limitations of television in the 70s and 80s, that Little House is yet another example of something that was WOKE all along.  

I don't recall a lot of the specific storylines on The Waltons.  But in recent viewings, I saw Elizabeth deal with possibly being paralyzed and an attempt to heal her by a "gypsy".  The Waltons are friendly with a "colored" family.  Well damn, that's some DEI stuff right there!  

All of this led me to wonder how these shows would handle certain other topics.  

Homosexuality:  The Waltons made it a point to be historically accurate, but I guess they could have a couple of "confirmed bachelors" or "old maids" sharing a home.  Maybe they did and I just don't remember. Maybe the Baldwin sisters weren't really sisters!  Little House would probably take a similar route, but given the pattern of that show, it'd be some stranger who wanders into town just long enough to confess the deep dark secret to an Ingalls.  

Interracial Marriage: Maybe one of the Walton boys could bring home a Japanese bride after WW2.  Maybe some local natives want to court the citizens of Walnut Grove.  But I can't see how a black/white pairing would work without destroying any semblance of historical accuracy.  One takes place not long after the Civil War.  One takes place in the American South.  Both predate the Civil Rights Movement. 

Transgenderism: This would be handled much like homosexuality.  (The girl-disguised-as-boy-for-protection trope does not count here!)  Little House's setting could set up an Albert Cashier type scenario. Albert Cashier Hell, maybe Grandpa Walton served with an Albert Cashier... when did the military actually start examining recruits? 

Which leads me to why I gave this blog post the title I did.  Often when we hear about traditional values, it's people raving against the sort of things I just mentioned, but considering how these topics could have worked in the shows... some of our traditional values aren't bad.  

These fictions reflect the world as it once was.  Did Olivia Walton or Caroline Ingalls bother much about what the neighbors did in the bedroom?  Did Charles Ingalls and John Walton assume the the new guy in town was female because he had no beard?  I don't think so... not unless they were hurting people.  These are traditional values - if a person is harmless, what they do is none of my business. 

But maybe I'm just pushing that woke agenda. 

 

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. 

Sequel Series

 I've noticed a couple of trends: First, the number of television shows getting not so much spinoffs or reboots, but sequels.  Second, a lot of fussing about older shows that haven't "aged well".  So I'm dusting off my Entertainment Soapbox. 

A casual list I threw together while pondering this blog post includes:  Roseanne/The Conners, How I Met Your Mother/How I Met Your Father, Boy Meets World/Girl Meets World, Full House/Fuller House, That 70s Show/That 90s Show.  In the case of Big Bang Theory/Young Sheldon, we have a prequel series.  Many of the complaints I see from viewers are along the lines of "they're pushing a liberal agenda" or "they've betrayed the original".   (All writers are pushing an agenda, whether we know it of not.  See my previous rant on that subject.)

I think, at least in certain cases, these complainers are wrong.  The Conners seems very much in the spirit of the original - only the political climate has changed. It was okay for Roseanne to encourage young DJ not to be racist, but now that he's married to a black woman, that's offensive.   The character of Gina has a history with the family and seems to be as well written as any secondary sitcom character. 

A sequel series that does seem to be guilty of "pushing a liberal agenda" is That 90s show.  There's been a lot of talk among fans about timeline inaccuracies, but I don't let that bother me much because the original show's timeline was wonky as hell and because some of these questions might be explained eventually.  My problem stems from Ozzie.  The rest of the gang is as well written as the original in the first season, and are racially diverse, but poor Ozzie seems to exist simply as "the gay boy".   I'm all for diversity, folks, but I don't want it to be the entire character!

Now let's talk about the aging problem.  Personally, I think the entire sitcom genre is based on less-than-perfect characters.  We laugh at the character's faults, which are of course blown out of proportion for comedy.  We should keep this in mind when discussing what is or isn't offensive.

One that hasn't aged well and does have a sequel in How I Met Your Mother/Father.  The character of Barney Stinson alone gets a lot of the "not aging well" press.  Some viewers note that Ted was an unreliable narrator and had reasons to paint Barney badly. I stopped watching HIMYM when Robin and Barney divorced, and I've not seen HIMYF at all, but I hear that Barney has appeared - so maybe they can redeem him somewhat.  

The sitcom I loved that gets hate for not aging well is Friends.  Homophobia in particular is rampant in the show, but a lot of it comes from Chandler's own insecurities (remember, exaggerated for comedy).  Now, suppose they were to make a Friends: The Next Generation.  The offspring of the original gang - Erica, Jack, Emma, and Ben were all born during the run of Friends.  On his spinoff, Joey mentions that Phoebe and Mike had at least one child.  If we want racial diversity, Joey could have married or adopted any ethnicity.  If one or more of the core group is LGBT, that gives Chandler a chance to deal with his issues and redeem himself.  

I guess what I'm getting at is that these sequel series, if done well, can correct some of the problems with older shows.  But, again, these are sitcoms and by definition shouldn't be taken too seriously. 

 

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.)  

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. 

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.

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. 

Keyboard Vigilantes

This isn't about Keyboard Warriors - that would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  A good Keyboard Warrior is civil, respectful, and logical.  This is about individuals who think they have the right to censor what other individuals say or do.  Not by reporting the offensive thing to the service provider, but by attacking the speaker and anyone who agrees.

Two pictures have sparked outrage and even gotten me unfriended:  Section Eight Barbie and Welfare Barbie.  Section Eight Barbie was the standard blonde - but pregnant, with two or three toddlers around her, and leaning on the wall of stereotype Project Housing.  The children were not the same race as their implied mother.  Welfare Barbie is also the pregnant blonde, but she's pushing a shopping cart full of beer, cigarettes, and toddlers.  None of these toddlers is the same race as their implied siblings.

While no one said in so many words that I wasn't allowed to share or laugh at them, the implication was there.  We who shared the joke and anyone who didn't respond with moral outrage was a racist snob - never mind the fact that many of us have "dated outside our race" and/or are, ourselves, drawing government benefits. Never mind an established pattern of behavior that showed how non-racist and non-snob we are.

In the case of Section Eight Barbie,  the "racist snob" didn't even notice that the children were of a different race.  She saw someone making fun of the official version of Barbie and shared it with me, her favorite Barbie Girl.

I often share Welfare Barbie myself, usually in response to jackasses who believe the Welfare Stereotype. I see the white mom with three kids - one Asian and one black - as nothing more than visual shorthand for promiscuity.

I'm in a Facebook group about The Walking Dead.  You know, that TV show with zombies being the nicest of the bad guys?  Someone there posted a pun about if Judith (a baby) had been caught by the cannibal bad guys she'd be Baby Back Ribs.  You can probably guess the rest.

So...  here is a list of the things I find offensive.  Polarized politics, Willful Ignorance, Thinking men should be able to read women's minds instead of taking them at their word, Looks taking priority over Heart and Brain, Religious fanaticism.  I do not attack people for these things, particularly if they are obviously mocking them.  But I'm the crazy person.

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.

Public Unisex Restrooms

I remember being a small child and asking why my brothers had to go into a different public restroom.  All the toilets were in little stalls, after all, and no one could see each other.  The reason given was that the urinals are not in stalls, and that some people will "peek" at the opposite sex.    

Forty years or so later, I still don't get it.  Urinals can be done away with, or put into stalls, or hidden in secluded corners.  I've been peeked at - by adult females and by children of both sexes.  So it's clearly not simply an "opposite sex" thing.

I also speak from the parental (more or less) point of view.  A female parent (or parental facsimile) can't go into the men's room, but may not feel safe letting the boy child go by himself.  Even if said boy child is "old enough".  Even parents who might take a boy into the women's room are reluctant to take a girl into the men's.  Those open urinals, I suppose.   Never mind that only Ron Jeremy might be able to use a urinal from a distance that would allow a sighting.

Which leads me to nudity.  There is nothing evil about any body part in and of itself.  No one's eyeballs have ever boiled from glancing at an unexcited reproductive organ, unless I missed that X-men comic.   Most people tend to shield those parts from view, anyway, even at the urinals.

The people who would hurt your child are not always of the opposite sex, nor are they always sexually motivated.  Sex-segregated restrooms do little or nothing to protect them.  In fact, if these predators target a woman's male child in a unisex restroom, she will be there to protect him.

I can't tell you how many times I've used a men's room because I was about to burst and the wait for the women's was forever.  Having a unisex restroom, smaller than the two combined would have been but larger than either alone, would make the wait shorter.  Builders could save at least the cost of that dividing wall.  A unisex restroom wouldn't need to be closed for cleaning - there's no issue of what sex the janitor is.

Unisex bathrooms simply make more sense, especially in a world where those lines are becoming more blurred every day.  Save money, time, and space.  Build unisex bathrooms.

Marriage and flags

ON GAY MARRIAGE 

Bestiality and pedophilia are not going to become legal because animals and children are not capable of informed consent.  There may be some basis to the thinking that polygamy might become legal, but as I have said before - if everyone involved knows what they're getting into, and no one is being hurt, why not?  

An aside to my Anarchist friends, who say the government has no business in marriage, anyway, I must disagree.  Marriage is a legal contract, as romanticized as it may be, and a legal contract is exactly the sort of thing government does have business in.  And as a genealogist, I feel for those who  would have to research those undocumented marriages.  

"The Bible says...."   The USA is not founded on religion, but upon freedom. What any Holy Book says has no bearing.    

ON FLAGS 

Speaking of things we worship, let's move on to flags.  A flag is nothing more or less than a symbol, and symbols can mean anything.  That's why dream interpretation is so difficult.  Yes, the flag in question was meant to rally the troops in support of, among other things, racism. The CSA's founding documents are full of references to the natural superiority of whites.  (I learned this only recently, myself.  Don't feel bad if you didn't know.)

 But even those rallied troops disagreed about what it stood for.  At least some of the Johnny Rebs were not fans of slavery. Compare it to the gay marriage thing.  I don't want to marry a woman (have slaves), I might even think it's wrong to marry a woman (have slaves), but my right to do should be validated.     

It's been over a hundred and fifty years.  The symbol has evolved even from that debate.  To most of the people I know, it's nothing more than a reminder to stand up for their beliefs or a way of identifying as a Southerner.  Yes, I know some racists who display it.  But they are vastly outnumbered.  

If we ban every flag that's flown over a wrong, there will be a lot of naked flagpoles around.  The American Flag - you know, the one only a traitor would even look at cross-eyed - flew over not only slavery, but the Indian Removal and Japanese Interment Camps.  The Jolly Roger, which I see often on children's clothes,  flew over all kinds of raping and pillaging.  Yet we understand that when we fly those flags, we aren't advocating that behavior.   

Draw a swastika on something and let people happen to see it.  When they freak out, tell them it was originally a symbol of protection and that they, therefore, are wrong to be offended by it.  Maybe even point out that the Nazis drew it in a very specific manner, different from yours.  Their reaction will tell you all you need to know about how a symbol evolves.  In the case of the swastika, it has been tainted by association with genocide.  It no longer means what it once did.  The Rebel flag evolved the opposite way, that's all.  

And even if it didn't, the First Amendment gives us the freedom to be horrible.  

Bad Business

A lot of yelling going on about a state law that lets business owners refuse service based on their religious beliefs. I do not have a problem with said law.  If a business owner wants to shoot himself in the foot by doing this, I say let them.

Most of the yelling is being done about gays, and I have little doubt that gay rights was the catalyst for this law, but they are not the only ones being turned away by stupid businessmen.

If I own a bakery, for example, I could refuse service to couples who want a cake to celebrate the big day that they move in together.  I could refuse to make a baby shower cake on the grounds that the parents are not married. I could even refuse service to a woman wearing make-up.

What if I own a reception hall?  If you want to host an AfterProm, I can turn you away because I believe dancing is sinful.  A wedding party for a mixed-race or mixed-religion couple?  My faith teaches not to "yoke an ox with an ass".  Maybe I refuse your little one's Miss Piggy themed party because pork is unclean.

Now what happens?  Whoever I refused service to is offended and the people who love them are offended. Word of mouth is the most effective way to get, or lose, business.  This is 2015 and people no longer shrug these things off.  People not only react, they react on a global scale.  I could post on Facebook that a local business had turned me out (for any reason) and people in Japan would know instantly.

 I support the right of a business owner to shot himself in the foot.  With a bazooka if he so chooses.

Confused About Gender

I have always objected to gender roles.  I was delighted to hear that McDonald's will no longer refer to their Happy Meal toy selections as "boy toys" and "girl toys".  The first time a McDonald's asked if my Happy Meal was for a boy or a girl, I went ballistic.  Even though I understand that a "boy toy" is called this because most people who want to play with it are little penis-bearers, I still don't like the implication that a female child might burst into flames (or worse, grow up gay) because she plays with one.

Sadly, however, I find the reasoning is not because they want to avoid limiting a kid's options due to gender.  It is because they don't want to be insensitive to "gender confused" children.  Seriously, I have to wonder just how much gender confusion is caused by the very idea of gender roles.

I did a little research and found that most symptoms of Gender Confusion have to do with a child not fitting gender roles.  There are a few genetic anomalies, but otherwise the only symptom I read about that wasn't directly tied into gender roles was this: Some children actually express the desire to be the other sex.  And that might be an indirect thing.  I may have expressed the same wish as a child, not so much because I wanted a wiener, but because I had to lick the soap for saying "up your nose" when my brothers said a lot worse.  Because I was a girl and saying "up your nose" was not lady-like.  Had I been a boy, I might have wished to be a girl because girls didn't have to mow the lawn.

The problem lies in the attitude we, as a society, have about these things.  We believe there is something wrong with a boy who likes Barbie and with a girl who likes Hot Wheels.  Even if your little man wants to wear a pink ruffly dress, this doesn't mean he's Gender Confused.  Maybe weird, but he's probably pretty sure he's a dude - unless he's been told otherwise.  I will admit that none of my male minions have expressed the desire to dress like a Disney Princess, but they've all played with "girl toys" and the gals played with "boy toys".  I'm pretty sure they all know what sex they are.

Little boys get the worst of it.  We have a socially acceptable word for the "tomboy".  But the nicest word I can think of for a girly boy is "sissy".  Hardly the same level of acceptance there.  Might that be the cause of Gender Confusion?  If a child is told something - anything - often enough by the adults in his/her life, they are going to believe it.  A boy raised to think only a girl likes pink?  He might come to think he's a girl, since he likes pink, and thus exhibit the signs of Gender Confusion.

McDonald's contributed to the problem by enforcing, even subtly, gender roles.  Any person or business who refers to toys by gender preference did.  My question is this:  Why is it even a problem?  There will always be people who don't fit the norm, either by design or by choice.  Why not just accept them, as long as they are harmless?  Why do we have to vilify anyone until we are forced to be "sensitive" and then bend over backwards for them?

Are Stereotypes really that bad?

Does any rational human being really believe stereotypes?  I know nobody who actually thinks all lesbians hang out at Home Depot or that every black person on the planet loves watermelon.  At least, not that I know of.  I joke about stereotypes because I find the entire thing ridiculous.  I'm mocking the very idea that anyone, anywhere, takes them seriously.  Who watches Mythbusters and really expects Grant to suddenly go all Ninja on Tory?

My favorite example is Speedy Gonzalez.  He steals cheese because he is a MOUSE. His record of petty theft has nothing to do with his being from Mexico.  In fact, if I were a Mexican guy, I'd find Speedy a compliment.  He's a go-to guy with all the senoritas in love with him.  He's clever and resourceful.  How is he a negative?  Why is it bad for them to make Speedy Gonzalez cartoons?

Stereotypes often have a basis in reality, too, like it or not.  Historically, tribal societies from all over the world celebrate music and athletics... and yes, those things do filter down through the generations.  Food stereotypes have historical or cultural roots.  If you don't believe me, look it up.

Yes, a stereotype can be a bad thing.  But a word is not automatically an insult, not even the "N" word.  Look at the big picture before you get upset.  Ask why.  I'm in therapy for my persecution complex and I get this concept.  What's the excuse for society at large?

Bazookas and Barbies

If you buy your kids guns, they will be Jack The Ripper.  If you buy your kids fashion dolls, they will be prissy and brainless.  What?!  That's possibly the silliest thing I ever heard of.  A BB Gun or a Barbie is an inanimate object.  It has no power over you or yours.  What has the power over you, particularly as a child, is other people.  I live with a seven year old boy who plays with both weapons and dolls.  He is not growing up to be either Charlie Manson or Liberace.

He knows not to shoot anything with a face and a pulse - unless he is going to eat it, or it is trying to eat him - even with Nerf.  Violence he sees on TV and video games is explained in context.  "Yes, James Bond killed that guy, but that guy was trying to blow up Europe."  "Captain Kirk was bad to want to kill all the Klingons.  I'm glad he figured that out."   

The dolls technically aren't his, they belong to the crazy aunt in the attic.  At least, the evil fashion dolls are.  His plastic people are 'action figures' and therefore either belong in the War Toys discussion or are socially acceptable.  The fashion dolls generally have what he calls "Barbie School".  He is teacher and principal.  Curriculum has covered subjects like Pokemon, volcanoes, video games, dinosaurs...  never fashion!  His class has a variety of skin tones (many of them aren't even human), they all get along, and most of them look like they've been through a wind tunnel.

We teach by example.   I have used Barbies for many years to teach kids of both genders about the things that make us different, and how it ultimately doesn't matter unless you're hurting someone. My Barbies have had adventures that'd curl Mattel's hair!  The hunters and military men in my family have always been very big on the safety issues.  And, no, that doesn't meant put the safety on before handing the gun to Junior.

Inanimate objects do not have that kind of power unless YOU give it that power.  Even the official toy company line has no power once that toy is in your kid's hot little hands.  Hand your little girl a Barbie and she's going to emulate the people around her.  Hand your boy a Nerf Bazooka and he's gonna do what he's been taught is appropriate. Switch the toys and the kids will be fine.

I used to get really mad about "Boy Toys" and "Girl Toys" because I felt that it limited the child's options, but I've come to realize that it is a generalization.  Most boys prefer certain toys, most girls prefer other toys.  This is not meant to be a limitation, no one is going to stop a little boy from buying Barbie.  Except maybe you...

 

Homophobia, Religious Freedom, and Boycotts.

The recent fuss over the Christian stance of Chick-Fil-A's CEO and the proposed boycott has me defending a "homophobe".  The guy is within his rights, and even strikes me as a better Christian than many, but this requires some explaining.  The stance of the Bible (you know, that book the Christians use as an instruction manual) is clear - homosexuality is a sin.  Those of us who approach the Bible from a more intellectual standpoint can fill in the gaps of historical content and cultural bias, but the true Christian runs on faith, not on facts.  It would be hypocritical of him to do other than run his business by his own standards.  He catered an event that made a lot of money for his business - an event that also supports his beliefs.  When asked about it, he gave an honest response.  I do think he is in the wrong to support legislation that infringes on the rights of others, because of this little thing called Separation of Church and State, but I otherwise have his back.  


The gay community is calling for a boycott of his business.  I will not be participating in this, or any, boycott.  Boycotts hurt more people than they help.  Think of all the people employed by this company - how many of them are you willing to put out of work? How quickly will you judge them when they apply for Welfare?  If I boycott every business run by, or employing, people whose private lives I disapprove of, I'd never go anywhere.  The girl who rang me up sleeps around, the boy who bagged my groceries smokes, the manager of the store is a racist...  it could go on forever.  I'm sure someone working for the company that made my truck is a really bad person, but I still want my truck.

We can't just let nature run wild!

I read that quote somewhere and laughed at it so hard I hurt myself.  I think it was a politician who said it, which wouldn't be surprising.  Look at the stuff they are trying to ban or already have banned.

Did you know that many areas ban breast-feeding because someone might see a boob?  I guess because a boob is what they call a "secondary sex characteristic".  So is chest hair (not that you see much of that anymore, but that's another rant)  and beards, which you can legally flaunt.  Some of us find a hairy chest or a beard just as sexy as others find a boob, and I've never heard of those providing nutrition and/or boosting immunity.

The whole gay marriage debate is stupid.  Homosexuality DOES happen in nature.  It is a deviation from the norm, yes, but certainly more natural than living in square boxes. It's against someone's religion?  So are cars.  Which, by the way, are not natural.  Gonna corrupt our youth?  No more than legal and unnatural things like books and schools.  

Then we have a plant that could do wonders for the environment, the economy, and the world in general.  Hemp seeds are nutritious and their oil can be used just like linseed oil.  We can make clothes from hemp.  The use of Hemp Fuel and Hemp Plastics could replace Big Oil.  Petroleum is natural, but refined into a pollutant, by the way.  Rope, canvas, even oil dry can be made from this evil plant.  How many of these things can be done with tobacco or alcohol?  Both of which are legal and one of which does not grow naturally?  


Seriously.....  "We can't just let nature run wild."   

Rainbow Oreo

I saw this and my first thought was "Why pride?"  Why not just follow the advice of Roseanne Barr (She said it about being fat, but the sentiment is the same)  "So you're gay.  It's okay to be gay.  Just be gay and shut up about it."  I really do not understand what all the fuss is about.  I must be some kind of alien or something, because I totally fail to understand why one aspect of your person should be such a big deal.

Well, I went to a comment section on one of the news stories, prepared to say so, and got slapped in the face with the why.  I don't have people telling me that I can't be a lefty because it's against THEIR religion. No one is screaming BOOKWORM at me when I walk down the street with my book.  There's no debate over why I prefer oranges over olives.  

The fact is, that one aspect has become a big deal because of other people - not because of the gays.  If those of us who believe it's wrong would shut the hell up, they would not be all-up-in-your-face. So, to paraphrase Roseanne again "So you're ignorant.  It's okay to be ignorant.  Just be ignorant and shut up about it."

And that cookie looks really yummy, too.

An open letter to an former friend

(I post this reluctantly, having no desire to play the martyr.  But I've ranted in my head, into the empty house, even on paper, and nothing helps.  Maybe blogging about it will get her out of my head so I can move on.)  

For over twenty years, we were friends.  You claimed to not mind, and even to enjoy, supporting me as I struggled to rise above my programming.  You told me drinking scared you, that many of your kin had problems with it and you didn't want to join that club.  You told me your co-workers were jerks and losers.  For many of those years, people 'knew' we were a couple... a reasonable assumption, all things considered, but you were irate.  I used to tell my friends and family to not even joke about it around you.

Then you tell me one day that you've decided you're a lesbian, that a certain party who boasted about converting straight women was your sweetheart.  You jumped out of the closet feet first, waving the rainbow flag like a madman.  All those years, you had been insulted at the idea of being with me.  All those years, you had insisted you were straight as an arrow.  But when I got upset, it was my homophobia that was the problem.

You visited mutual friends and told them I never let you drink, that I never let you go out with your co-workers, that I was using you financially.  I never left a job, in all those years, without another lined up.  I bought you stuff with my Welfare when I'd been fired.  You told me to get bill money from my sister so you could go to a Star Trek Convention!  But I was freeloading off you?!  You got me a pager so you could keep track of where I was, but I had you on a leash?!

After I figured out our friendship was a lost cause and moved out, you continued to put our mutual friends in the middle.  You basically told at least one of them to choose between me or you. (I see that some of my friends on Facebook are also your friends and think about telling them the things you said about them back then.  But, childish as I am, I'm more mature than that.)  You tried to keep me from your father's funeral, even though your mother wanted me there.

So tell me, how is this my fault?  You lied to me for twenty years about - well, pretty much everything - but it's my fault we aren't friends anymore?  Sometimes I wonder if we were ever friends.  Maybe that was yet another thing you lied about.