I confuse people. About lots of stuff, but in this case, I'd like to address the Barbie issue. I have roughly forty of these little plastic folks. I do not collect them. I play with them. I enjoy combing their hair and dressing them and setting up little scenes with them (not that the scenes last long - I do live with three cats and a kid, after all.)
I'm not defining Barbie by Mattel's copyright. "Barbie" is a species name on Jeanie Planet. Males are included. Fashion dolls made by other companies are included. Prepubescent dolls are included. 1:6 scale action figures are included. I'm pretty sure this might horrify a serious collector.
I pick them out by some distinctive feature. A lot of them have unnatural hair colors. Some of them are characters or celebrities. At least one of them was chosen for her bizarre eye color. If they get a name change, that's probably where the name came from. Violet has a purple stripe in her hair (She came with the name Fashion Fever Barbie).
They generally arrive with a name already. Sharpay became Charmaine because I find misspelled dog breeds to be objectionable. Candy Glam Teresa became Candy because I already had a Teresa. Chelsea became Kelly because I couldn't get used to Mattel's change to Barbie's sister's name. (But Stacie remained Stacie because that sister's original name predates me.) I'm kinda arbitrary about it.
Why, you ask. Why would a grown woman spend her energy and money on such nonsense? I could go into all kinds of psychobabble about my messed-up childhood, but I'll spare us all. It ultimately doesn't matter. I enjoy it and it's harmless.
I do have a few rules about play. Like NEVER, EVER leave someone naked upon the completion of play. I get a little upset about that one.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
The Welfare State
There is an awful lot of misunderstanding out there about Welfare. Or whatever politically correct label it bears this week. People are under the impression that we get eight million dollars a month and spend it all on beer and cigarettes. I've been told more than once it is not the government's job to take care of me if I can't work, it's my family's. I'm going to rant about both these points.
The amount you get varies a great deal, depending upon how many folks there are in your household and if they are working. Then it depends on how much they are working, and their hourly wage. Rules vary from county to county, but a very few folks are not required to at least look for work. The disabled and children, for example. It is not an automatic free ride, and the Welfare Department has to know everything but what color underwear you prefer. When I was last on a "check" my monthly amount was less than the rent on a one bedroom apartment. Currently, my SSDI is less than 800 dollars a month and all I get from Welfare is a medical card, which I have to pay a "spend down" on.
I've known countless people on Welfare in my nearly half-century on this planet. Most of them were in need temporarily. Most of them, if they smoke and drink, do it in moderation and put the needs of their children first. Most of them follow the rules, and accept the (relatively meager) help with gratitude. And, yes, shame. I can think of maybe three examples of stereotypical "Welfare People".
Now, about it not being the government's job to take care of me. In theory, I agree with this. If someone in your family needs help, you should help them. And society should reward that with, if nothing else, a proverbial pat on the back. My experience teaches me that our society does not work that way. What should be is not the same thing as what is.
I've taken in homeless friends and relatives, even if all I could give them was a floor to sleep on and four walls around them, and they have appreciated it. Society told me I was foolish, I was being taken advantage of, I was flat-out stupid for doing so. Because of Society's rules, my family cannot put me on their health insurance. When I was in need, my family came to my aid and got the "stupid" treatment from Society.
So... Welfare is not a free ride, is not a million dollars a month, and most people on it are not scum. And, yes, it is the government's job to help them. Because society won't allow the people who should to do it.
The amount you get varies a great deal, depending upon how many folks there are in your household and if they are working. Then it depends on how much they are working, and their hourly wage. Rules vary from county to county, but a very few folks are not required to at least look for work. The disabled and children, for example. It is not an automatic free ride, and the Welfare Department has to know everything but what color underwear you prefer. When I was last on a "check" my monthly amount was less than the rent on a one bedroom apartment. Currently, my SSDI is less than 800 dollars a month and all I get from Welfare is a medical card, which I have to pay a "spend down" on.
I've known countless people on Welfare in my nearly half-century on this planet. Most of them were in need temporarily. Most of them, if they smoke and drink, do it in moderation and put the needs of their children first. Most of them follow the rules, and accept the (relatively meager) help with gratitude. And, yes, shame. I can think of maybe three examples of stereotypical "Welfare People".
Now, about it not being the government's job to take care of me. In theory, I agree with this. If someone in your family needs help, you should help them. And society should reward that with, if nothing else, a proverbial pat on the back. My experience teaches me that our society does not work that way. What should be is not the same thing as what is.
I've taken in homeless friends and relatives, even if all I could give them was a floor to sleep on and four walls around them, and they have appreciated it. Society told me I was foolish, I was being taken advantage of, I was flat-out stupid for doing so. Because of Society's rules, my family cannot put me on their health insurance. When I was in need, my family came to my aid and got the "stupid" treatment from Society.
So... Welfare is not a free ride, is not a million dollars a month, and most people on it are not scum. And, yes, it is the government's job to help them. Because society won't allow the people who should to do it.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Bullying
With the new school year upon us, there's an upsurge in talk of bullying. Having been a victim of bullying and a pseudo-parent, I thought I would toss my opinions into the ring. Peer pressure has long been seen as a means of social control, and it can have positive outcomes. The egregious examples of bullying, of course, are the ones we hear about the most. The ones who drive the victim possibly as far as suicide. But often it is simply peer pressure gone wrong.
When I was in junior high, I was hygienically challenged and I clung to things my classmates had left far behind. I got un-stinky and (as far as they knew) I'd given up childish pursuits, so they zeroed in on the clothes. These were what I consider real bullies. The ones that, if they sense a weakness, will exploit it. My wardrobe was mostly hand-me-downs and my youngest sister was five years my senior. In 1978, I was wearing 1973 (if that new) fashions. Finally, my stepmother took me shopping for new school clothes. Finally, I was in the same clothes the cheerleaders were wearing! That did not shut the real bullies up. They started in on my hairdo, or my lack of make-up, or anything they could. That was when I gave up. Not gave up as in suicide. I gave up trying to please them.
I know it isn't always so simple - especially if the bullying is physical - but in my case that worked. By the tenth grade, I was largely accepted. Or at least left alone. I've always tried to encourage that in the children I know. Ignoring the bullies is best, if possible. They simply do not matter. I also give my kids instruction in how not to be a bully, because I do believe it can happen by accident or by omission.
If you tease a classmate for being really short, does it hurt their feelings? Make sure it doesn't - let them know you are just playing. Everyone playfully teases the people they like, and to teach our kids different is just going to confuse them. If you see a classmate being hurt - emotionally or physically - get up and defend them. As a parent, teacher, or doting aunt, it is the adult's job to teach children that even kids they don't like do not deserve to be bullied.
What to do if you are being bullied? Something I find alarming is that most practical solutions will get the victim into at least as much trouble as the bully. Retaliate, either physically or verbally? You get busted, both by the school and frequently by both sets of parents. To tattle on the bully is counterproductive - he is gonna deny it and then beat you up worse later. Banding together with the other victims, for some psychological or sociological reason, does not happen.
What to do if you see someone else being bullied? The same logic applies here. One who intervenes will likely end up in the same situation as one who retaliates. Teachers have to actually witness the incident themselves before they can take action, but who wants to always hang around the teachers?
So, what do we do? We, as a society, need to stop this. Because it ain't just the kids doing it. As a kid, I was bullied by the same adults that were supposed to be protecting me. Gym teachers who heard the mocking of my peers and said nothing - or even joined in. An English teacher branded me a trouble maker, just on the basis of my surname. Parents, even. As an adult, it can be co-workers or bosses who give you extra work while they chat. Your child's teacher who condescends to you because you work at Burger King. The other parents who refuse to chat with you at pick-up time.
Entire dissertations have been written on why bullies bully. What it boils down to, really, is because they gain power from it. We need to take that power. When your kid comes home with a detention slip because he stood up for himself, or someone else, then do not punish him. He did the right thing. Or the wrong thing for the right reasons. "Bobby got detention for fighting, but his parents didn't ground him" sends a message, and not just to Bobby.
Granted, I'm no expert, and there are always exceptions, but I think the problem with bullying is that we've taken away the Leave It To Beaver solution. Teach the victim to fight - emotionally, physically, verbally - if attacked. Teach our young to defend each other - even that annoying girl who has a crush on you - from the bullies. Take back our playgrounds, our parks, our sidewalks. Hell, even our Internet. Go on the offensive.
When I was in junior high, I was hygienically challenged and I clung to things my classmates had left far behind. I got un-stinky and (as far as they knew) I'd given up childish pursuits, so they zeroed in on the clothes. These were what I consider real bullies. The ones that, if they sense a weakness, will exploit it. My wardrobe was mostly hand-me-downs and my youngest sister was five years my senior. In 1978, I was wearing 1973 (if that new) fashions. Finally, my stepmother took me shopping for new school clothes. Finally, I was in the same clothes the cheerleaders were wearing! That did not shut the real bullies up. They started in on my hairdo, or my lack of make-up, or anything they could. That was when I gave up. Not gave up as in suicide. I gave up trying to please them.
I know it isn't always so simple - especially if the bullying is physical - but in my case that worked. By the tenth grade, I was largely accepted. Or at least left alone. I've always tried to encourage that in the children I know. Ignoring the bullies is best, if possible. They simply do not matter. I also give my kids instruction in how not to be a bully, because I do believe it can happen by accident or by omission.
If you tease a classmate for being really short, does it hurt their feelings? Make sure it doesn't - let them know you are just playing. Everyone playfully teases the people they like, and to teach our kids different is just going to confuse them. If you see a classmate being hurt - emotionally or physically - get up and defend them. As a parent, teacher, or doting aunt, it is the adult's job to teach children that even kids they don't like do not deserve to be bullied.
What to do if you are being bullied? Something I find alarming is that most practical solutions will get the victim into at least as much trouble as the bully. Retaliate, either physically or verbally? You get busted, both by the school and frequently by both sets of parents. To tattle on the bully is counterproductive - he is gonna deny it and then beat you up worse later. Banding together with the other victims, for some psychological or sociological reason, does not happen.
What to do if you see someone else being bullied? The same logic applies here. One who intervenes will likely end up in the same situation as one who retaliates. Teachers have to actually witness the incident themselves before they can take action, but who wants to always hang around the teachers?
So, what do we do? We, as a society, need to stop this. Because it ain't just the kids doing it. As a kid, I was bullied by the same adults that were supposed to be protecting me. Gym teachers who heard the mocking of my peers and said nothing - or even joined in. An English teacher branded me a trouble maker, just on the basis of my surname. Parents, even. As an adult, it can be co-workers or bosses who give you extra work while they chat. Your child's teacher who condescends to you because you work at Burger King. The other parents who refuse to chat with you at pick-up time.
Entire dissertations have been written on why bullies bully. What it boils down to, really, is because they gain power from it. We need to take that power. When your kid comes home with a detention slip because he stood up for himself, or someone else, then do not punish him. He did the right thing. Or the wrong thing for the right reasons. "Bobby got detention for fighting, but his parents didn't ground him" sends a message, and not just to Bobby.
Granted, I'm no expert, and there are always exceptions, but I think the problem with bullying is that we've taken away the Leave It To Beaver solution. Teach the victim to fight - emotionally, physically, verbally - if attacked. Teach our young to defend each other - even that annoying girl who has a crush on you - from the bullies. Take back our playgrounds, our parks, our sidewalks. Hell, even our Internet. Go on the offensive.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
The Customer is frequently wrong.
People now think they can take their pets into a store or restaurant. All they have to do is claim it is a Service Animal. Or say something about how cruel it would be to leave Fido in the hot car. Here's a couple of thoughts on the subject - if you can't be apart from your pet long enough to get some groceries or a Big Mac, there are much bigger issues at hand. Yes, sometimes things happen you don't expect. You are coming home from the dog park and realize you need a jug of milk. That's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about expecting the staff of a business to let you break the law because you want to be there for at least a half an hour.
If you have one of those Saver Cards that get you ten cents off a gallon "on your next fill up", read the small print. It's usually your next gas purchase, and if you waste that discount on a smaller one, do not scream at the cashier. You fell for the hyperbole of advertising - and she did not write the ad. She also is not allowed to take expired coupons.
Twelve items or less (grammar Nazi wincing here) means you are not supposed to unload two carts. If your cashier is underage, she is required by law to call over another person to scan your booze or smoke. A place is going to close and open according to their clock, not yours.
If your child is using safety features at the gas station or a cart corral as a monkey bar, do not get bent when the employees ask them not to. They are just trying to keep your kid alive and the business from being sued. They really are minding their own business.
If you have one of those Saver Cards that get you ten cents off a gallon "on your next fill up", read the small print. It's usually your next gas purchase, and if you waste that discount on a smaller one, do not scream at the cashier. You fell for the hyperbole of advertising - and she did not write the ad. She also is not allowed to take expired coupons.
Twelve items or less (grammar Nazi wincing here) means you are not supposed to unload two carts. If your cashier is underage, she is required by law to call over another person to scan your booze or smoke. A place is going to close and open according to their clock, not yours.
If your child is using safety features at the gas station or a cart corral as a monkey bar, do not get bent when the employees ask them not to. They are just trying to keep your kid alive and the business from being sued. They really are minding their own business.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Lookism (as much as I hate -ism terminology)
A proud parent shows you a picture of the offspring holding an Honor Roll Certificate, a diploma, or a degree. If your response is about the physical attractiveness of the kid, you are the person I'm going to be ranting about.
I see it a lot on social media and it makes my blood boil. There are times when a comment on one's looks is quite appropriate, but the proper response to this sort of thing is "Good job" or "Way to go." Even "Looking good" might work, as it can be interpreted as "You have a bright future". But if I win the Nobel Peace Prize and you can only focus on what I look like, you need to just go away. I was, in my youth, a passably attractive woman, but that got me nothing positive. What I've accomplished in my life, I have done through my brains and my heart.
I did not get a diploma or an AAS by posing in a bikini. People who need help with school work, or just research in general, don't contact me because they want to look at me. My nephew did not move me into his house to help raise his son because I'm so pretty. I do not get rescued from the roadside when my car breaks down because I'm sexy.
Then there's the fat-shaming and the skinny-shaming. Unless a person's weight is a health issue, it does not matter. I'm fat, but if making fun of skinny girls makes me feel better about myself, that's a problem. Fat or Skinny, you can be beautiful. If it matters.
Either way, if you had to be stranded on a deserted island with a hateful, stupid person or a kind, bright one... would their looks matter? "I don't have much, but I've got cute kids" tells me nothing that impresses me. I have helped raise many kids, and I will boast to you about what good people they are or how smart they are. If they are good-looking, that might come up. Eventually.
If all you or your kids can accomplish is being ornamental, I pity you and them. But try to make me or mine be nothing but an ornament, we're gonna tangle. And I have a very wide definition of "me or mine". It might well include some of you and yours.
I see it a lot on social media and it makes my blood boil. There are times when a comment on one's looks is quite appropriate, but the proper response to this sort of thing is "Good job" or "Way to go." Even "Looking good" might work, as it can be interpreted as "You have a bright future". But if I win the Nobel Peace Prize and you can only focus on what I look like, you need to just go away. I was, in my youth, a passably attractive woman, but that got me nothing positive. What I've accomplished in my life, I have done through my brains and my heart.
I did not get a diploma or an AAS by posing in a bikini. People who need help with school work, or just research in general, don't contact me because they want to look at me. My nephew did not move me into his house to help raise his son because I'm so pretty. I do not get rescued from the roadside when my car breaks down because I'm sexy.
Then there's the fat-shaming and the skinny-shaming. Unless a person's weight is a health issue, it does not matter. I'm fat, but if making fun of skinny girls makes me feel better about myself, that's a problem. Fat or Skinny, you can be beautiful. If it matters.
Either way, if you had to be stranded on a deserted island with a hateful, stupid person or a kind, bright one... would their looks matter? "I don't have much, but I've got cute kids" tells me nothing that impresses me. I have helped raise many kids, and I will boast to you about what good people they are or how smart they are. If they are good-looking, that might come up. Eventually.
If all you or your kids can accomplish is being ornamental, I pity you and them. But try to make me or mine be nothing but an ornament, we're gonna tangle. And I have a very wide definition of "me or mine". It might well include some of you and yours.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, June 27, 2014
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)