Not You

There's an idiosyncrasy among us humans that both amuses and annoys me.  I usually refer it it as "it's okay if my party does it" because the most egregious examples I see are among political partisans.  Don't vote for Bob because he did the same thing you excuse Bill doing.  But it's not just politics.  

I caught myself doing it the other day.  In my apartment complex, there are residents with non-working vehicles.  Said residents do nothing to fix or remove the vehicles, thus taking up parking spots better used by those of us with working vehicles.  I'm not talking broken down for a day or even a week, I'm talking months.  I could plant a crop on the van out there.   Yet even as I grumble and gripe, I make excuses for one of those residents.  Because I like him.  I don't like or know the others.  

I've been told anyone on government benefits is morally repulsive and then given a pass when I mention my own dependence on SSDI.  I was in a store yesterday and realized that, if I hadn't been standing there to see the cashier's efforts to fix the register (it was having a nervous breakdown over a check), I'd be grumbling like all the people in line behind me.  

We all do it, especially if we actively dislike the person in question.  I had a million examples in mind but, of course, most of them jumped out of my head as soon as I started typing.  I guess it's just human nature.  We have more compassion for those we know and/or like.  

Maybe it's a defense mechanism.  We simply are not capable of loving some stranger across the world as strongly as we do our friends and family.  Either way, it's been on my mind and I blogged about it because that's what I do.  

 

My Trigger, My Problem

I broke my own rule this week.  I've often said that I am responsible for how I react to things and I should not expect the world to tiptoe around me.   

That's not to say my family and friends are perfect.  I know the problem isn't always me, but why get mad at Bob for acting like Bob?  Which is what I did.  Instead of taking a mental step back, instead of discussing my hurt calmly, I yelled and stomped away.  Been mad at myself ever since. 

I'm a bit confused about what exactly a trigger is, psychologically speaking.  Google says it's anything that negatively affects your emotional state.  Maybe I'm showing my age - I was diagnosed and did most of my research back when dinosaurs roamed the earth - but in my mind,  a trigger isn't something that makes you uncomfortable.  It's something that makes you think you are in actual physical danger. 

But I'll accept that things have changed.  If my usual feeling of inadequacy gets inflamed, I suppose that is a trigger. I won't, however, change my opinion on who is responsible for it.  I should have walked away and calmed myself, maybe even had a good cry.  What I should  not have done was verbally attack the poor guy for asking a question.  

BTW:  "Bob" accepted my apology.  

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.)  

Make Up Your Minds

I'm not privy to details, and the stories contradict each other, but what it boils down to is this:  A civilian was given a weapon and sent (or allowed to go) into what was essentially a battle.  The weapon was not anything a civilian would have ever used outside of a gun range.  Add the youth of said civilian to the mix.  Frankly, it's a miracle more people were not killed.

Society tells us that anyone even a day under the age of 18 is not capable of informed consent.  Any adult who gives a minor a beer, a cigarette, or an orgasm is breaking the law.  The news media and the general public will opine at length about how the adult victimized the child.  

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old.  He is neither hero nor villain.  Kyle is a victim, a pawn played by polarized talking heads.  Legally speaking, as a child, he was not capable of making the choices he made.  His adults let him, perhaps even encouraged him to, go into danger.  

Those adults should be put to trial.  I believe the legal terms are "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and "child endangerment".  Likely, there are others in the book we should be throwing at them.   If Kyle was not capable of  consent where beer or tobacco or sex is concerned, he absolutely was not capable of knowing what the was getting into that night. 

If Kyle was capable, we need to take a long hard look at how we, as a society, view teenagers. 

Who Are We To Judge?

Humans judge.  It's just something we do, and I accept that fact.  Maybe it's even part of our evolved instincts.  I'm not up on my soap box today about normal day-to-day judging.  I'm here to clarify a few things about The Pearly Gates.  

Prince Phillip died the same day as rapper DMX.  Actress Kerry Washington said something on her social media about the two of them meeting at the Pearly Gates and caught (no pun intended) Holy Hell for it.  Apparently, Phillip would not be there because he was a racist.  DMX would be there because he was a Good Christian.  

RANT 1: 

Even when I was a Good Little Christian Girl, I did not believe it was my place to decide who was and wasn't going to Heaven.  I believed that was God's job.  I believed that if you sinned, it was between you and God to sort out.  So... a mighty presumption on the part of all these people.   

DMX had more than a dozen children, only four of which were born to his wife.  That makes him a fornicator and possibly an adulterer.  Adultery is one of the Top Ten Sins.  Fornication is mentioned often in The Bible as a sin.  We could also talk about his addiction issues vs that whole body-as-a-temple thing, but I'm not going to attack a fellow mental health patient.  

Phillip was a racist, at least by modern standards.  There's no denying that. Many Biblical passages have been interpreted to support the notion of racism.  The first that comes to mind is the Curse Of Ham.  Many sects of Christianity used Ham's Curse to justify slavery and opposition to racial intermarriage.  By that thinking, Phillip's bigger sin would have been welcoming his grandson's mixed-race bride into the family (as she has gone on record he did). 

But as I said, that's between them and God.  Not my call. 

RANT TWO:

The Pearly Gates are often seen in popular culture as a death metaphor.  One of my favorite comics is three clerics, one from each major world religion, standing before a pagan goddess at the Pearly Gates.  It makes me giggle every time. 

Popular culture tells us that the dead stand before St Peter (not God) at the Pearly Gates.  It makes sense that Phillip and DMX would meet there.  Them meeting there just means they died about the same time.  It doesn't mean that either one is going to get wings. Peter still has to check the list, like a bouncer at an exclusive nightclub.  Peter.  Not you, not me, not even God. 

RANT THREE:  

Both these men had faults.  They were human beings, after all.  Both these men leave families who should be allowed to grieve without the entire world sitting in judgement.  

Private Lives of Public Figures... Again

When I was young, I was told that going to the movies meant I'm okay with the "Hollywood Lifestyle".  I wasn't quite driving age, but that logic seemed wrong and it still does.  Yes, celebrities are role models with huge areas of influence, but they are still human beings. 

Bill Cosby once scolded Eddie Murphy for profanity.  He waved around an honorary PhD as if he'd actually earned it.  I didn't like him then, for those things, and we've learned since that he was doing way worse things.  Yet I still enjoy quoting his old stand-up routines.   

Linda would have broken up The Beatles if Yoko hadn't.  Both  Paul and John wrapped their whole worlds around a woman, and Paul acted like John was in the wrong for doing it.  I don't like hypocrites.  But Paul is a fantastic musician.  His talent can't be denied.  

Johnny Depp stands accused but never convicted.  Michael Jackson stands accused but never convicted.  (Innocent until proven guilty but I digress.)  I am a fan both of the men, in their creative fields.  Depp can act circles around most of Hollywood and Jackson made amazing music. 

JK Rowling has said a lot of things, some I agree with and some I don't.  I don't think I'd enjoy having dinner with her.   I've also read the Harry Potter series repeatedly and will continue to do so.  

We've had a series of adulterers and racists in the White House.  Most of this nation's Founders were slave owners.  Yet we judge those men, at least the more historically distant ones, on the quality of the job done.  We should be judging the recent ones the same way.   

I consider the money I spend or the vote I cast to be payment for a job done well.  The amount of support I give for said job depends entirely upon how well.  The private life of payee is none of my business.  This applies equally to a celebrity and to a grocery store clerk. 

Why Don't Schools Teach....

Used to be, Home Ec or Shop was a required course.  People complained that the skills were out-dated and they're now offered as an elective if at all.  Yet I hear it all the time - why don't schools teach gardening, woodworking, sewing, or cooking?

I have a variation on that question: Why don't you teach those things? Why are we not instilling in the young a love of these creative and cost-effective habits?  Why should they learn skills they never see the adults around them use?   

I know a young man, a freshman in high school.  He knows the basics of gardening, cooking, sewing, carpentry, mechanics and engineering.  Because his adults did/do and enjoy those things.  Even if the work itself isn't enjoyable, he's seen the pride taken in a job well done and benefited from the money saved.  If your teenager or child isn't learning these skills, it's on you.  

Kids of a creative bent are constantly told to pursue something else as a career because there's "no money in that".  These skills are manual labor, and therefore nothing to brag about as a profession.  Unless, of course, you manage to own the company or become famous.  

As for the math people keep saying schools should teach?  How to play the stock market, for example?  Guess what... they often have elective classes that teach those things.  Guess what else... most people are not going to use those skills in an economy that leaves most of us floundering from payday to payday and running a Go Fund Me for medical expenses.  

All math is based on what we learn in elementary school - addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  Balancing a checkbook is rarely anything more than adding and subtracting. Compound interest is more complex, but still boils down to those basics.  

Even more galling is the fact that thse are the same people claiming that teaching reproductive biology is "not the school's job".  And don't even get me started on "indoctrination" because that's a blog in and of itself. 

Triggered

I've seen a meme of C-3PO shutting down after Luke and Obi-Wan start talking about Luke's father labeled "Triggered".  On one level, it struck me as funny.  On another, thought provoking... can an artificial life form be triggered in that sense?  But..  The maker of the meme was mocking the mentally ill!  What a horrible person!

I once got an email urging me to boycott the T-Shirt I was actually wearing.  It was, like the meme, mocking the mentally ill!  Those who made it, those who laugh at it, and those who wear it are all horrible people!

Today I was reading a news story about a famous murder case and the comment section was full of condemnation for the reporters.  By writing a story which sells (the entire purpose of most mass media), they were propagating the horror the victim's family has gone through.  This struck me as very like the reaction to the meme and also quite hypocritical.

Why hypocritical?  Two words: Nine.  Eleven.

Every year on that date, one of the most horrific things that ever happened on American soil gets revisited ad nauseam.  This is a very real psychological trigger for countless people.  To this day, I can still hear the voice I think of as the "Oh my god" lady.  

In 2011, I was working in the Discharge Office of a local hospital.  I collected co-pays and screened patients for possible bill assistance.  I also sat less than fifty feet from a television I could not turn off, one that replayed the footage repeatedly for weeks after the event. Thank my god, I couldn't see the screen, but I could hear it.  "Oh my god" lady and all.

I was fortunate.  My nephew was on his honeymoon in the DC area, but he wasn't near the Pentagon that morning.  I didn't know anyone who died that day.  I may not even know anyone who knew someone that did.  But thousands of us are walking around with psychological scars simply from witnessing it on the television.

The only way to avoid it is to pull the plug on everything, including your phone.  For those of us who work or go to school, that isn't possible.  The same people who get mad over a meme, a T-shirt, a news story, are getting mad if you neglect to trigger the thousands of victims of 9/11.  Social media, including emails and text, is flooded with detailed photos of the towers going down.  The mass media runs commemorative stories, usually with the same detailed photos or (worse) video.

The C-3PO meme is mocking those who think everything they don't like is a trigger.  My crazy aunt T-Shirt is whistling past the graveyard.  I will continue to enjoy those things at least as long as giving me a week's worth of nightmares every fall is encouraged.  God only knows what it puts those with real trauma from 9/11 through.

Appropriation or Appreciation?

We hear so much about Cultural Appropriation like it's a bad thing.  Appropriate can mean steal or usurp, but it can also mean borrow or adopt.  Borrowing and adopting come from appreciation.  The Great American Melting Pot is and was all about appropriation - we borrow ideas from one another. The whites came here from Europe and took some ideas from the folks that already lived here.  Those folks took some ideas from the Europeans.  Corn for metal tools, maybe, or booze for tobacco. Italian immigrants traded recipes with their German neighbors.  

My own lineage is mostly German and Irish.  I have a friend who is Sioux.  Are we not allowed to celebrate Christmas because it's largely based on Mediterranean traditions?  Of course we can - we appropriated it because we appreciated it.  The Mother Earth/Father Sky motif reflects my beliefs much more accurately than anything else.  Ethnic foods are just plain yummy.  I am not victimizing anyone by braiding my hair.  No one is being hurt because my names are (in order of appearance) Latin, French, and German.  

That's not to say it's never a problem.  Plagiarism is a form of appropriation and the only people that approve of it are the plagiarists.  Eminent Domain is appropriation, but every time a government uses it, there is an outcry.  But it's hardly the problem it's made out to be.

A white dude that wears dreadlocks is not appropriating black culture.  Many European cultures (and some native to the Americas) wore similar styles or maybe he just appreciates the look.  There are legitimate reasons why a non-Asian might wear a kimono.  

Most Americans, regardless of race or religion, start the day with a cup of coffee.  Coffee was invented by Arabs and adopted by Europeans.  Sometimes they have grits, made from corn and borrowed from the natives of North America, for breakfast.  If they eat spaghetti or pizza, they're appreciating Italian food.  Maybe they have popcorn in the evening (see previous mentions of corn) for a snack.  

Think for a moment of all the things you enjoy that came from a different place than your DNA. Those things were all appropriated, borrowed, adopted...  because they were appreciated.  Some of the things others enjoy were benignly filched from your ancestors.  And that's okay.  No harm, no foul.  Usually.  

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.

That Neighbor

We all have one.  That neighbor who we want to kick every time we see them.  The one who constantly complains.  "Someone reported me for a minor issue."  My father was one.  My former roomie was one.  When I got my apartment, I vowed not to be That Neighbor.

I can shrug off the kinds of things they raged over.  The neighbors don't pick up after the dogs?  I just watch my step.  Downstairs beats on the ceiling to shush me but plays their TV awfully loud at three in the morning?  I roll my eyes and move on with my life.  I did yell at kids once for playing in the dumpster area.  Once.  For safety reasons.

The apartment down the hall from me belongs to a heavy smoker.  The smell - not actual smoke - permeates, so I just go the other way.  Use the stairs instead of the elevator.  No big deal.  I think the former occupant of my unit smoked, but lots of home remedies took care of the worst of that smell.

In the spring, butts started appearing in the hallways and  the stairwell is often full of smoke. Someone has even taken down the legally required signs.  Over a week after reporting the situation to management, I replaced the signs (printed a photo of the sign by the elevator) even though it's technically against the rules for me to post signs in the public areas.  My signs also vanished.  

Smoking has always been a major bone of contention for me. Smoking is unhealthy, expensive, and just plain stinks.  I went hungry as a child, but my mother always had her cigarettes.  She died a slow, lingering death.  Cancer - started in the lungs.  I don't allow it inside my home and constantly encourage my smoking friends to quit.

Disrespect is also a bone of contention.  I will defend your right to fly a flag others find offensive, for example.  Accidental disrespect happens all the time.  Blatant disrespect - like flying said flag for the sole intent of offending others - is an entirely different thing.

I'll defend your right to have the unhealthy, expensive, and stinky habit.  Smoking while walking down a hallway is accidental disrespect.  (Some smokers light up and don't even realize it.)  Tearing down a No Smoking sign, however, is blatant disrespect.  Smoking in an enclosed area long enough to fill it with smoke is blatant disrespect.  If the same person does both, which seems logical in this context, I don't even have an adjective handy.

I've called the number on the No Smoking signs. I'm still worried about becoming That Neighbor.  I would much rather pack up and move again than do so, but just thinking about doing that makes me want to cry.  Except for this issue, I'm happy here.  

Political Subtleties

Before I met my friend, my experience with Anarchists was limited to those who call for a violent overthrow of the government.  My friend patiently and respectfully explained to me that Anarchism, like all ideologies, has subdivisions.  Those I had known are not representative of the large majority - most Anarchists practice what they call the Non Aggression Principle.  They based their belief on the very idea that, if left alone by government, people will be able to live peaceably and help each other out voluntarily.  The few jerks who won't will end up effectively banishing themselves.

Yet we see people freely slap the label Communist on Bernie Sanders.  Communism and Socialism are closely related, yes.  Both fall under the same ideological umbrella.  Yet there are the same sort of subtle differences we find in Anarchism.  Communism is to Socialism what those Violent Over-throwers are to Anarchy.  They are the fanatics.  

Fanatics exist in every group, be it political, religious, racial, sexual....  Islam has ISIS, Christianity has WBC...  It is wrong to assume your neighbor Abdul wants to chop off your head because you ate a ham sandwich.  It is wrong to assume Pastor Smith wants gays executed.  I know Catholics who see birth control as a matter of conscience and accept the idea of abortion under certain circumstances, feminists who are happily married to men and even have children, lesbians who don't hate men and even raise straight children of both sexes.

If you are a member of any group (and who isn't), the proper response to an ignorant party is not to attack them.  On any level.  My own personal experience with Fanatic Anarchism might be "anecdotal evidence" and therefore a logical fallacy, but you aren't going to get anywhere by insulting me.  I am willing to be convinced - said friend can vouch for that - but only by a respectful discussion.  

And if you expect me to see subtle differences, you need to be willing to see them as well.  Or you are guilty of a logical fallacy of your own, as well as of being a hypocrite.   

First Ladies

Presidential elections are approaching, and with them yet another woman is going to find herself First Lady.  Or maybe a guy, since we have a heterosexual female in the running.  Bill might get out of it - we've had Presidents whose First Lady was a daughter or niece.  I always feel for these women.  They just can't catch a break.

Mary Lincoln thought the American people needed to see her as prosperous, to combat that whole Civil War bleakness.  Instead they called her frivolous and wasteful.  Nancy Reagan, a Hollywood woman, was also called these things because of her expensive tastes.  Yet Michelle Obama is "cheap" for buying clothes most American women can afford.  Barbara Bush, and to a lesser extent, her daughter-in-law Laura, were practical women and thus labeled frumpy.  So...  the First Lady is standing in her closet, knowing she's going to be mocked no matter what outfit she chooses.

It's become tradition that the First Lady choose a pet cause.  Jackie Kennedy famously renovated and redecorated the White House, saving a good deal of history from ending up in a landfill.  Yet it seems she's the only one to get proper credit for her efforts.  Nancy Reagan went after drug abuse and "Just Say No" is laughed at.  Hillary and Michelle get called all kinds of names for wanting actual regulations.  Again, the poor First Lady is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

I'd hate to be in her shoes, whoever she may be.  Because nothing she's going to do is going to be right.  If she wears fancy clothes, she's a snob.  If she's frugal, she has no sense of style.  If she comes on too strong with her pet cause, she's a shrew.  If she comes on not strong enough, she'll be laughed at and/or ignored.  She'll be too old or too young.  She'll have a scandalous past or she'll be boring.

Sometimes I think Rachel Jackson had the right idea - when her husband was elected, she promptly dropped dead.

Star Wars, Racism, and Sexism.

The Empire Triumphant: Race, Religion, and Rebellion in the Star Wars Films  by Kevin J. Wetmore Junior. 

Let me begin by saying this: I am not a huge fan of George Lucas.  Largely because of the almost incestuous Luke and Leia story line and because he wanted Marion Ravenwood to be too young to drive when Indiana Jones seduced her, I suspect he may be a pervert.  Even so, I feel the need to defend him from baseless accusations.  

The author starts out by saying he isn't calling George Lucas a racist, and then proceeds to list all the reasons the Star Wars Universe (created by George Lucas, remember) is as racist as a Klan rally.  His logic is not consistent, he relies on revisionist history, and worst of all - he criticizes another author for doing the same thing he is.  The other author "ignores evidence that contradicts his interpretation".  

The author claims filming in Tunisia for the backwards world of Tatooine means  Lucas believes Tunisia to be backwards.  Yet it doesn't occur to him that the primitives of Endor were filmed in California, which would mean Lucas thinks of Californians (including himself) as primitive. 

Aspects inspired by Asian culture are "appropriation" if used on a good guy and "stereotyping" if used on a bad guy.  Lucas has never made a secret that he was heavily influenced by Japanese movies.  The Jedi are analogous to Samurais.  What this guy is calling Appropriation is actually Imitation - the highest form of flattery.    

He claims that there is no sex in the Star Wars Universe and then tells us Vader sexually threatened Leia on the Death Star (Interrogation Scene), that Lando was a horny stereotype, and even compares Luke to Oedipus.  

At one point, he says the characters never go to "a performance", yet we see Palpatine at what seems to be an opera.  There are "no aliens" in the capital city - except for those interacting with the White Males the author keeps ranting about.  He even goes so far to take literally Luke's petulant comment to C-3PO about being farthest from the bright spot in the center of the universe!

Now that I've poked all kinds of holes in his logic, shall we move on to his claim of racism?  First is the lack of color - everyone is white.  Mace Windu and Lando?  Tokens.  Even Padme's right-hand-man, a black man named Panaka, is dismissed as tokenism.  My favorite one, though, is the claim that Vader is black.  Never mind he has white skin under the armor, and white offspring, Darth Vader is clearly an Evil Black Man.  One who sexually threatens the virginal white Princess.  

Jar Jar Binks is a "Gungun" according to this book.  "Gunguns" are black stereotypes who were not allowed a voice in the Senate.  In truth, Gungans (note the spelling) were isolationists.  They  didn't want to be in the Senate.  They were also Quasi-Jamaican, and not all Jamaicans are black.  

The Neimoidians were inscrutable and had almond-shaped eyes, so they must be Asian, thus making Asians evil.  Watto was greedy and had a big nose, so he must be Jewish.  The Jawa, by merit of the words sounding similar, were Jews - even though their behavior more fits the stereotype of a Gypsy. And the Tusken Raiders are Arabs, Bedouins to be precise, because they are nomadic and dress for protection from the desert in which they live.  

Ewoks and Wookies are American Indians, which makes Chewbacca Tonto.   Or maybe Friday, since he was a South American "savage" tamed by the White Man.  Any tribal society, in harmony with nature, MUST be American Indians.  

Then there's the mean way Lucas portrays women.  All they can do is have babies (Shmi and Padme) or get saved!  Did you know Leia was rescued from Jabba The Hut?  Never mind it looked like she was participating in a plan to rescue a White Male...  All those bad guys either of the leading ladies shot?  They don't count.  The female Jedis we saw? Tokenism.  

I will grant that the Star Wars universe could use more color and that females are under-represented. What this book does goes beyond that.  Star Wars is a tale meant for children.  As such, things are simplified and a resemblance to established stereotypes is going to happen.  And of course George Lucas tells a story from a Eurocentric viewpoint - he is descended from Europeans and raised in Western society.  

Trans-WHAT

I've already weighed in on my opinion about transgenders.  Gender is a social construct and with few exceptions, caused by the roles society expects of us because of our genitalia.  I am no expert.  What I am is a reasonably intelligent person capable of research and deductive reasoning.

Steve Martin did a movie years ago in which a white boy is raised in a black family.  The boy is shocked to discover he's white.  It was a hilarious fictional concept.  Transracial was a joke.

I know a woman who dresses, behaves, and speaks like a black woman.  She is married to a black man and has given birth to five children society labels "African-American".  I've told her she's a black girl in a white skin.  I have joked with a Sioux friend that I'm a Indian in a white body.  Never did it occur to me that someone would seriously make such a claim.

Well, someone did.  The same people who are lauding the courage of a "woman" with a penis are having conniptions over a "black" who has no proven African genealogy.  My question is - really, at the root of it, what is the difference?  How is transracial so different from transgender?

Holidays and Holy Days

It happens every year.  Twice a year, to be exact.  The first time is in and around December and the second is during Spring.  The Christians allow the media to get them all fired up about The War On Christmas and then, to a lesser degree, The War On Easter.  Godless Heathens everywhere are out to get these holiest of days.

What the Christians don't realize and the media isn't telling them is simple.  These Holiest of Days belonged to the Heathens first, but not Godless ones.  These Heathens had their own Gods and the early Christian Church, in an effort to usurp those Gods, adopted the ceremonial occasions.  Long before it was the birthday of Jesus, December 25 was Saturnalia.  Most of the trappings of Christmas come from various traditions connected to pagan worship.

The same goes for Easter - the name of which is actually derived from the name of a Heathen Goddess.  The bunny, the eggs... guess what Gods they honored originally?

I take no issue with any faith's Holy Days.  I even celebrate a Secular Christmas and I embrace Easter as a celebration of Spring.  The Holy Days of another faith do us no harm.  The Media's upsetting people just to get ratings, however, harms all of us because it creates problems.

Then we have the Holy Days that have been completely usurped by society in general.  Any Catholic will tell you any saint's day is holy.  Not as holy as Jesus's days, but holy nonetheless.  Yet two of the saint's days have come quite... well, unholy is too strong a word, but hear me out.

St Valentine and St Patrick were great men of amazing faith.  Yet most people don't even call February 14 St Valentine's Day.  It's Valentine's Day.  As in be my.  (Actually, many folks think it is Valentimes Day.  I even knew someone named Valentine who did that.)  No one pauses to think about the martyr to his cause because they are too busy doing things that, quite frankly, he would probably have disapproved of.

And poor ole St Patrick.  If people know anything about him, it's simply that he is the patron saint of Ireland.  Maybe they know he ran all the snakes out of Ireland, and that he used the shamrock to teach Trinity Doctrine.  What does this martyr get?  Everyone celebrates the Irish heritage they may or may not have by indulging in, again, behavior the day's namesake frowned upon. Even today, in the society that rails against stereotyping and in which the names of sports teams create heated arguments, the Irish are drunken brawling leprechauns.

The same folks who think I'm out to get Jesus because I say "Season's Greetings" are dressing up like lawn ornaments and getting drunk on green beer.  Most of them aren't even still fornicating with this years "Valentime".  The same media that's got folks screaming down the street about the War On My Religion is not telling them they are doing the same thing, possibly even to themselves.  But I don't blame the media - they're just doing their job.  I blame the ones screaming down the street.

Blaming The Symptoms

I've blogged about this before, specifically about Barbie and body image, but another case has come to my attention.  50 Shades of Gray is causing unhealthy relationships.

Mixed heavily with rants about 50 Shades of Gray are those mourning Lesley Gore.  You know Lesley - she sang "Judy's Turn To Cry" and "Maybe I Know".  Roughly fifty years ago, these songs were huge hits.  For those among my hordes of readers who don't know, let me summarize.  "It's My Party" tells us about how, at Lesley's party, Johnny dumps her for Judy and she has to explain why she's crying.  "Judy's Turn To Cry" tells us about how Lesley gets Johnny back - she kisses another guy and Johnny hits him.  The entire song "Maybe I know" can be summed up with the lines "Maybe I know that he's been a-cheatin' but what can I do".

"I Love Lucy" was a hilarious show about a woman's misadventures, largely caused by her stark terror of her husband.  "The Honeymooners" featured a man threatening his verbally abusive wife with violence.  "Xena: Warrior Princess" has Xena keeping her magically conceived child (her partner Gabrielle blithely assumes that Hercules was the father) just a couple years after ordering Gabrielle to kill HER magically conceived child. "The Walking Dead" featured Lori, who only had a backbone when defending her husband/marriage. I've heard that the "Twilight" relationship is less than healthy, but having not read/seen more than the first book/movie, I really can't say.

A popular meme about 50 Shades is "Women don't watch porn, but they read the hell out of it".  This isn't news - women have always read porn in the form of The Bodice Ripper.   Historical romance, thus the woman is wearing a bodice, which the man rips off of her.  Rips.  Usually to her protests. But that's okay, because she eventually becomes overwhelmed with desire.  She gets grabbed against her will, has her clothes ripped off, and then gets turned on.  "Gone With The Wind" features marital rape in the same vein.  

So don't tell me 50 Shades of Gray is gonna cause unhealthy relationships.  If anything, the opposite is true.

Hobby Lobby

Yes, I am going there.  This entire thing has me irate, but not for the reasons you might think.  For those of you who just awakened from a coma or returned from a desert island, the Supreme Court has given employers (represented by Hobby Lobby) the right to deny female employees birth control - due to religious reasons.

My take on the actual decision is this:  No employer should be able to dictate your insurance if you are paying it yourself through payroll deduction.  A corporation is not capable of worship, except by definition at the altar of God Money.  If you are employed by an actual human being and he is paying for your health care, then and only then should this apply.

It is the outcry that's angered me.  For many years I paid for my work-related insurance through payroll deduction and still the boss could decide what I could have.  Among things denied me were psychiatric medicines and pre-existing conditions.  Hmm... that takes out my Prozac and any diabetic care...  yet I'm paying for the insurance.  It was an economic decision, totally socially acceptable, to deny me coverage for something I needed in order to function and maybe even stay alive. What's different?  I can tell you in a word - SEX   Not the slippery slope of  religion being forced onto the worker.  Not the great ideal of Universal Health Care.  Not even party politics.  SEX

It was fine to deny a Depressive her meds, to take away a diabetic's insulin or a cancer patient's chemo (because they already had the illness when hired).  But now they are taking away the ability to get laid with impunity.  I know not every woman uses birth control for that purpose - they tried to put me on The Pill before I got the hysterectomy - but the simple fact is, most women use birth control for just that.

The boss has no right to tell me I can't get laid, or that I should pay for my own protection. But for many years before this, the boss has had every right to tell me to buy my own medicine that keeps me alive and functioning.  The boss can tell me the demon in my head or the flaw in my pancreas is not covered, but God Forbid he tell me to keep me legs together.

Then we have the other definition of sex.  Since birth control is largely a women's issue, this must be an attack on the women.  We are being targeted because we are female.  It's a total throwback to the caveman days.  Men are evil creatures.  We should deny them sex - but that'd render moot the entire fit I'm having.

Why was it no biggie for God Money to deny people good health but it isn't okay for Jesus to deny you a fun Saturday night?  Where was your anger when care for issues not treated by a chaste lifestyle were being denied workers?  You were probably the same people who said to me "Don't like it? Don't work there."

So - same to you.  If you don't like it, don't work there.

Blame the vendors.

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

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

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

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

Sins of The Father

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

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

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

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

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