A Rose By Any Other Name

I'm getting a lot of stuff from the algorithm about baby names.  Which is far better than the usual stuff targeting my demographics.  Stupid anti-aging creams.  At least names are something I'm interested in.  But I digress....

Most of it is about unusual spellings and created names.  Some of them include names that have simply fallen out of use.  Which frankly speaks more to the lack of research by whoever wrote the article/list than it does about the layman who bestows the name on the child.  

****

To use an example from my own life: My grandmother was Lura.  She went to her grave believing a couple of  Lauras running around were named after her.  The only time it was a problem was when she got a new store credit card with Laura on it.  We had to speak to a supervisor to get it fixed, because the customer service guy insisted we were wrong and/or she should change her name. 

But in truth, the names are not related.  One is Germanic and one is Latin.  One refers to the mermaids of the Rhine and the other to a type of tree.  These articles like to claim Lura is a new variant of Laura.  

*****

There's a phrase I see a lot: This name is a Trajedeigh.  It's mostly about creative spelling, so I'll focus on that first.  I take no issue with creative spellings as long as I can still tell how the name is pronounced.  Ashley can be Ashleigh or Ashlee.  Both spellings are phonetically sound and the first is based on the traditionally female Leigh. My own name has several standard spellings.  

Trajedeigh is also about a rumored trend of people naming kids words they like the sound of, but do not know the meaning of.  Things like Chlamydia.  (Why is anyone using a word they don't know the meaning of? I can't even deal with not knowing what a word played in Scrabble means.  But I digress...)  I know and even previously blogged about how people rarely choose a name for its traditional meaning.  "I just like the sound of it" is even a valid reason in my book.  BUT... this is why we tell our loved ones what names we're considering.  So someone can warn us off.  

*****

Another theme I see a lot of is the theft of a name.  Sometimes it's pretty egregious... Sister-in-law is eight month pregnant with a girl she has always planned to name Henrietta, so I have a girl and name mine Henrietta.  Or adopt a pet and name it Henrietta.  But often it isn't a theft at all.  Suppose Henrietta is named after Grandma... and both mothers were keeping the name as a surprise.... 

Intent is important.  When I was in my early teens, I announced to my family what I intended to name my children.  Everyone knew Artemis and Tanner were my names.  If anyone in my family had used either of those names without at least talking to me about it, that would have been a name theft.  As it is, now I keep hoping someone will "steal" them.

*****

Race and Religion all play a role in the naming of children.  Those get ignored a lot in the articles that spawned this blog post.  I've seen the author called out on more than one for dissing traditional naming practices... again, that goes back to the author's lack of research.  Sometimes I think I put more research into these blog posts than these professionals are putting into their work. 

But I digress... 

***** 

My primary suggestion is to share your name choice before birth, if only with trusted friends.  They will give you a heads-up on the following possible issues:  Short forms, nicknames, availability on souvenirs, variant spellings, pop culture associations, and many more. 

Oh, and think twice before calling her by her middle name.  Explaining that becomes tedious real fast. 

How Is She Hearing Us?

The boys were here last night.  A medium sized invasion, three of them with two gaming systems and a laptop.  The evening passed as usual.  They played "annoy Jeanie but don't actually make her angry" and GTA  and some music.  They told me about their new YouTube channel, in which they make me seasick by playing Minecraft while verbally abusing one another, and picked on me for needing the captioning.  

You know, just regular hanging at Jeanie's fare.  They like it here because, for the most part, they get to do whatever they want. That's how I lure them in and make them my minions!  Anyway... this morning I was talking to them as they were packing up all their stuff to go.  Suddenly one of them stops, stares at me for a second, and turns to the one who is my actual kin.  He says "How is she hearing us?" 

A lot of people seem to think hearing loss is like the world's volume has been turned down 24/7 to the same level.  That might be true for some, but not anyone I know.  It's more like the world's volume is turned down to varying levels throughout the day - and for a glorious moment after my ears pop, the volume is almost normal! 

The best depictions I've seen are both episodes of The Walking Dead.  Season 9, episode 11 features a (silent) scene from a deaf character's POV.  Season 10, episode 5 opens with the POV of a character with hearing loss... volume fading in and out as she hunts a boar. (And I know some of y'all are groaning because I'm talking about that show again.) 

There are certain pitches I can't hear at all.  One friend of mine thought I was joking when I said I can't hear cicadas.  Or maybe I can hear them, faintly, but I think the sound is part of the tinnitus.  I pretty much constantly hear that, at varying levels - right now it's like what you hear when you put a seashell to your ear.

I could hear the boys today because my internal noise and their external noise (games and music) were largely absent.  The ones I was responding to were facing me, so quasi-lipreading helped.  

FYI, I did have a hearing aid.  It broke twice in a year and is no longer covered.  My Medicare supplement does give me 500 bucks a year toward ears, eyes, and teeth.  Hearing aids tend to start at four digits.  

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. 

 

Costumes

 Lots of fuss this time of year, every year, about insensitive costumes and stereotypes.  I don't really take offense at stereotyped costuming because I understand that it's all in fun and no one with more than 5 brain cells believes them.  However,  I thought I'd toss out a few work-arounds just in case.  

The witch, for example, goes back to earth religions (most obviously Wicca) and therefore could be seen as insensitive to modern adherents of those faiths.  If you want to be a witch for Halloween, yet still be thoughtful of your witchy friends and neighbors, consider choosing a specific witch from pop culture.  Wicked Witch of the West and Witchypoo even have the whole pointy-hat thing going on.  Variations could be a more colorful or modern take like one of the Halliwell sisters or a Hogwarts professor.   Mix up the tropes - maybe the Neutral Witch of the South? 

The cultures native to North America seem to take a beating every fall.  Often costumes include things that, in the real world, are sacred.  Those beautiful feathered headdresses are earned, usually through combat or wise leadership.  Would it be acceptable for me to wear a Medal of Honor as part of a costume?  If you go the buckskin-and-braids route, you're playing with the stereotype.  You can mix it up there - be a "mountain man" or even a "caveman".   Or go specific again.  Little Suzie wants to be an "Indian Princess" for Halloween, go Disney.  Pocahontas in reality had very little in common with the cartoon, and you can make that a teaching moment if you want.  For a real teaching moment, get historical.  Buckskin-and-braids-and baby = Sacagawea. 

The classic hobo, a staple of poor kids and dummies who wait til the last minute, is said to mock the homeless. You can easily turn the hobo into a scarecrow if that concerns you.  

I see stereotyped ethnicities trick-or-treating every year.  I have family and friends who I could claim these people are mocking.  I see it as playful teasing among friends.  I'm a hillbilly/redneck, a mental patient, a single woman over 40, and probably other "costumes" that I can't think of at the moment.  

Some costumes are more problematic than others, obviously.  Usually based on a negative stereotype.  Usually worn by the politically polarized or satirists.  Sometimes just heart breaking (Anne Frank).  Those I advise against across the board.  But let's be honest - almost every costume out there might be offensive to someone.  I suggest we all, on both sides of the issue, be more sensitive to others.  

Sex, Gender, and Shut Up

 Had two different conversations recently that bear on the sex/gender issue.  Now, to review - when I say sex I mean biology or the reproductive act.  When I say gender, I refer to society's notions of how we should look or behave because of our biology.  I'm also going to touch on sexuality, but just a bit. 

The first conversation was with a male teenager.  He's slender and has shoulder-length hair.  Someone tried to shame him by telling him he looks "like a girl from the back".  I say tried to, because the young man really doesn't care!  The incident actually bothers me more than it did him.  Why does it matter to anyone if he looks "like a girl from the back"?  Why would anyone be ashamed of this, as he was expected to be?   The only explanation I can come up with is Toxic Masculinity - one of the media's current hobbyhorses. Long hair on a boy threatened this person's personal image of himself.  Something the media likes to ignore, though, is that Toxic Femininity is also a thing.  So is Toxic Maturity, but I digress.  

Humans of both sexes are from birth (and even before that with ultrasounds) to conform to Gender Roles.  If we don't, we are generally mocked if not outright shunned.  Especially males.  A female child can be a tomboy, after all.  But for purposes of this particular rant, I'm going to be discussing adults or those approaching adulthood.  

My mother used to tell stories beginning with "When I was a little boy..."  not because she was actually male, but because she was commiserating with a male child.  She wanted to get that pesky division out of the way, because the story related to children of both sexes.  She was a female - but never a GIRL.  I have childhood photos of her, and she's wearing a dress (it was the 1940s) but that's where it ended. I probably have peers who thought she was a lesbian.  Yo momma wears combat boots wasn't playing the dozens for me, it was just the truth.  I have no memory of her ever wearing a dress.  A child walked up to her in a store and said "Excuse me, sir..."  She thought that was funny. 

Imagine catcalling a hot chick in an amusement park and my brother, with a full beard and mustache, answers you.  Again, it was funny.  If he reads this, he will laugh heartily at the memory.  The only gender roles we were expected to follow applied to chores, and I strongly suspect that was a holdover from when my parents were married.  

I tell these two stories to show that I've always had a very clear division in my head between Sex and Gender.  And you thought I was digressing again, didn't you?  

The second conversation was with a gay male couple.  These men have two children.  The children have lots of female role models despite the fact that they don't have a mommy.  Even if they didn't, I think they'll grow up just fine.  What is a woman going to teach them that a man or a book can't?

Anyone out there who thinks a parent's genitalia keeps them from parenting, shut up.  My momma wore combat boots and that was not one of the things she got wrong, so shut up.  If you cat-called some hippie dude and are now having an existential crisis, that's your problem, so shut up.  Unless people are hurting somebody, just shut up.  

As always, I invite civil debate of these points.  If you just wanna call names and insult people, shut up. 

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

The minds of the young, part 2

I just had an intelligent discussion of gun control with a child.  He is all for it - use both hands!  Okay, seriously, it was actually about how stupid people think teenagers are.  It started with his mentioning WW2 and how young the soldiers were.

Many memes play on the disconnect between how those men were seen and how men of the same age are seen today.  "Boys" stormed the beaches of Normandy.  Today, apparently, those same "boys" would be eating Tide Pods.  What happened?

My considered opinion, and that's really all this is, is this:  If anyone over the age of five (barring medical issues) is unable to think critically, their adults have failed them.  My minions are and were all over the charts on physical, social, and mental development.  Some of them were brighter at 10 than others at 30.  Some of them choose not to think critically, but that isn't the same thing as not being able.

Obviously, humans with still-developing brains are unable to understand things on a certain level.  I never expected them to.  "Don't stick your hand in the campfire" doesn't require a prolonged explanation of third degree burns.  "Those two men are married" doesn't need to include the Kama Sutra.  But I always have and always will respect the thinking abilities they have.

The young man I was talking to today is 13.  In many societies past, present, and probably future, he is considered a man.  He is expected to make adult choices.  But in modern America, he's still a child and therefore his brain is cottage cheese.  Yet he could discuss issues in elementary school.  Because his adults taught him to think.

There have always been Tide-Pod-Eaters.  Even now, they are not the majority.  As the song says, children are the future.  Teach them now and let them lead the way.

The Brains of The Young

Got into a discussion the other day, if you can imagine such a thing happening to me.  The topic at hand was the apparent homosexuality of a Disney character, but it rapidly became about something very different.  The other party insisted repeatedly that children are not capable of understanding homosexuality.

I've been a very hands-on aunt for most of my life.  My minions count in the dozens.  I've never come across a subject that children could not comprehend on some level.  You "dumb it down" for them, but they are capable of understanding.

Recently, I explained the transgender thing to a child.  I "dumbed it down" to having a girl brain in a boy body.  His head did not explode and he now understands the basic issue. We do have to be careful with our terminology - lesbians don't just love women, it's the getting-married kind of love.  We don't want little Suzie to decide she's clinically depressed because sometimes she feels sad.

Something else I've noticed about children is that they are more receptive to difference.  Race or religion are good touchstones here.  At a park, the kids all run and play together and it's no big deal if this one's a different color or that one won't eat a ham sandwich.  In fact, a conversation about those differences might start - thus they learn something about each other.  Adults could take a lesson.

It infuriates me that people so readily dismiss the brains of the young.  I have to laugh at some of the things I read in parenting magazines because otherwise I'd cry.  So much of that advice is stuff I've always done, without effort.  "When in the park, talk to the child about the various animals and plants you see."  WHO NEEDS TO BE TOLD THAT!?

Note I did not mention my position on having a girl brain in a boy body, or of wanting to marry a member of the same sex.  That all is really beside the point of this post.  The point here is simple.  Children are not stupid.  Simple, yes, but not stupid.

Another Barbie Rant

Just saw a news story about a woman who made a breast feeding Barbie.  Every now and then another story comes along about the Lammily doll - the normal Barbie is what that one usually gets called.  How pathetic do they think children are?  Dolls run on imagination and if your kid is so lacking in that area that they need all this stuff that's being sold, I'm afraid you have bigger problems.
You want your doll to breast-feed, pop open her shirt and have her hold a baby to her breast.  This is much easier with a elbow-articulated doll, by the way.  You want her to have a period, make her some little pads out of paper or bits of cloth.  There is no need for all these specialized dolls.

I give credit to the toy makers for more realistic proportions, even though I do not agree that Barbie's freakish figure psychologically damages children.

Lammily you can buy scar stickers for.  My Barbies have scars - mostly stray pen marks - and these aren't removable.  Who's realistic now, Lammily?  I've had Barbies lose limbs and explained it away with car accidents.  But some revolutionary out there is making amputee dolls.

I'll admit to having to coach my minions a bit, but I am not going to buy them something they can improvise for themselves.  If your child cannot figure out how to make a Zombie Fighter out of dolls, clothes, and accessories they already own...  I blame you.  Granted, it is more fun sometimes to have the specific character, but I'm referring to generalities.  A lot of these amazing, innovative dolls I'm hearing about are variations my doll-play even as a child. In the 1970s.

Little Plastic People - Part 3

Been looking at Barbie blogs.  There's a lot of them where folks have like whole communities of dolls and stage soap operas.  I really like the one called "How To Play With Barbies".  It's by a lady who has taken my philosophy of using the dolls as teaching tools way beyond what I do.  For example, in my Barbie World, if a kid wants to make Kira be married to Candy, I'm okay with it. Well, this lady has a doll of a lesbian celebrity - and  a doll of the real-life wife. She made the wife doll.  MADE it!  She used a doll of Mimi from The Drew Carey show to teach her daughter not to hate on fat people.  She seeks out dolls she can use for lessons.

I try not to have hard-and-fast rules about doll play.  I think it stifles creativity.  Right now, I'm making an album on my Facebook that's 2016 Barbie Scenarios and I have established for that a dollhouse family and some roles for others. But that probably won't be permanent, considering I'm eyeing the teen son for my next purge.  Also because, like I said, I try to avoid hard and fast rules.

My Barbie population now stands at 17 females, 10 males, and four animals.  I divide them into age groups by not just body molds, but faces as well.  A few of them are ambiguous - Mary could be a tall early teen or a late teen.  Sulu, Four, and Finnick are late teens or adults.  Skipper falls somewhere between the young teens and child.  Most of the adult females can also serve as late teens, but some of the faces firmly place them in one group or the other.

My minions have many stories of doll play at Jeanie's.  I've pontificated in the past about gender roles, so I'll spare you most of that.  Suffice to say that, to the best of my knowledge, none of my male minions has been gay.  There is a very real difference in how the boys play...  usually someone ends in with a head in the oven or toilet...

Perception and Racism

My nephew-in-law is a black man.  He's been dealing with racism for his entire life, and now he sees it where it may not exist. I can understand this, as I do the same thing with Welfare.  If he and I were standing in line at the grocery and the cashier was rude to the food-stamp-using black person before us, we would jump to different conclusions.

Another example, from fiction.  Professor Slughorn is surprised by a student who was born to Muggles - non-magical people - excelling in his class.  Harry Potter, angry, responds with "One of my best friends is Muggle-born and she's the best in our year."  The first few times I read this, I thought Slughorn was in the wrong.  But what if his surprise came, not from the bloodline, but from the notion that a Muggle-born has no exposure to magic until the age of eleven?  Imagine a child raised with no exposure to music suddenly becoming a virtuoso!

I'm sure there are many others, but I'll get to the point.  We do not know the motivations of strangers. The cashier in my first example could have been rude for any reason - maybe even just be a rude person.  When I was a cashier in a grocery, there was a woman who came in regularly.  She always tried to buy twice as much food as she had money for.  Every time.  Had I been rude to her, it would have had nothing to do with her race or method of payment.

I had a chat the other day, with a ten year old, about "The N Word".  He said that sometimes people use it to mean "friend".  One woman I knew used it the way I use "Black".  Some folks use it as they do the term "White Trash"- but for black folks.  But the problem is, the perception of it as a slur is simply too strong, so I told the kid to never use it.

The same is coming to apply to the word "Redskin".  I've read lots of historical documents where that word was used simply as a synonym to "American Indian".  Clearly, having it used as the name of a sports team is intended as a compliment.  Those who the term applies to need to pull a Hermione Granger (back to Harry Potter) - she embraced the wizarding slur "Mudblood" as a badge of honor.  Basically... "Damn straight I'm a Mudblood.  Mudbloods are awesome."  It's too late, I fear, to save the N word, but the R word still has a chance.  

I'm not going to tell you racism doesn't exist.  We do, though, need to keep a calm head about our own perceptions.  That guy cut you off in traffic, not because you are a different color, but because he would have cut off his identical twin. That lady who tells you that your half-black children are beautiful means well, even if she is kind of ignorant.

Come to think of it, this advice applies to life in general.  Don't assume to know why people do things.  I bet everyone reading this has a different take on why the stick people family on my truck is huge.  Some of you, those who know me best even, might be wrong.

Role Models

The news these days is full of celebrities being caught in bad behavior - and a resultant fall from grace annoys me.  Not so much because I think they don't deserve it, because some of them deserve worse than they are getting.  What annoys me about it is the shock "normal" folks experience when they discover a celebrity is not above reproach.

Years ago, I was told that going to the movies was, in effect, approving the Hollywood Lifestyle.  I thought that a strange way to look at it - after all, if I pay a waitress to serve my lunch, what she does at home is not my business.

The big one right now is Bill Cosby.  That endearing, funny man so many of us wished was our dad or uncle turns out to be an old pro at "slipping her a mickey".  But that doesn't make The Chicken Heart any less funny.  That doesn't mean we can't still giggle when God asks Noah how long he can tread water.

There are a couple of celebrities that recently got into trouble over calling someone a "nigger".  Both of them are from the south, old enough to remember the civil rights movement, and were talking about a specific person they did not like.  Anyone with half a brain, in the 21st century, should not be using that word, but the context is important.    

But I digress.  My real point here is that any role model is imperfect.  Even you.  Yes, you are a role model.  You can admire Angelina Jolie as an actress or as a humanitarian while disapproving of her past personal life.

The trick is teaching your kids to have sense about it.  I've said it before - talk to them.  Kids aren't stupid.  When someone they admire behaves badly, discuss it with them.  Teach them that people are not perfect, not even celebrities.  Teach them to emulate and reward the good in people without being blind to the faults.  Remember it for yourself.  None of us should be defined by a single action, good or bad.

Let's talk about sex

My niece saw a woman breast feeding in public and her reaction was less than enlightened.  I have no problem with breast feeding in public, for two reasons. One, providing nourishment is the primary role of the breast.  It is why mammals have breasts.  Any secondary purpose is just that - secondary.  Skin can provide sexual pleasure, but societies that insist on covering every bit of it are considered backward and even sexist.   Two, it is unfair to women to make them cover what men can flaunt - even men no one wants to see.  A breast is a secondary sexual characteristic - medical definition there - just like the beards and body hair men have.  (Yes, I am advocating that women should be allowed to be topless in public.)

Of course, this hypocrisy isn't limited to the breast-feeding debate.  Or even to breasts themselves.  Our entire culture is obsessed with sex.  Look at our advertising, our pop culture, even our Snobby Literature.  (Read some Shakespeare.  Damn!)   But then look at our real life.  Children are not allowed to have a penis or a vulva - they have cutesy names for those parts like "PeeBug" or "Lolly".  We explain, in simple terms at first, how digestion and breathing work, but sex is taboo.

How many molested children could have been saved by the simple knowledge that these are ADULT actions, and therefore should not be done to or by kids?  We teach them to report "Bobby punched me" or "Suzie stole my allowance", but not this violation.  Because we don't want our children to know about sex.  That's just plain stupid.

I am a prude.  I think you should wait for marriage.  I regret having had sex.  That said, I also know that the sex I had did not kill me or even make me sick. What passes for Sex Ed in most schools is a lesson in biology followed by IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE. We don't teach Driver's Ed by screaming IF YOU DRIVE YOU WILL WRECK AND DIE.  In every other area, we teach moderation and caution.  This can be done with sex.  It is not the job of the schools to teach morals or religion.  If you don't want your child to have sex for moral or religious reasons, it is your job to teach them that.

I'm also a borderline nudist.  But that's a whole 'nother blog.

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...