I've always been very reluctant to use the term "white trash", because at one point in my life, it was likely how I was described. When my mom, sister, and I first moved to Idaho, we were flat broke, my mom was single and only 22, and yes, we did a stint living in a mobile home park on the outskirts of a small town. It was a condition we never celebrated, and one that my mother got us out of as soon as she could.
White trash was always something bad. It was a completely negative connotation that should be avoided at all cost. If you were white trash, it meant that you were poor, not because of circumstances, but because of stupid decisions. It meant that you were uneducated by choice, refused to adhere to proper manners and social graces, and were generally, a detriment to society. No one wanted to talk about white trash, see it, or be it. However, somewhere in the hellscape that is reality television all that changed, and now our failing nation seems to have become obsessed with white trash.
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least a few minutes of these shows and they all follow a similar pattern; they profile a family, usually low income and little post-high school education, who happens to spend lots of money on hobbies, but lives in a sketchy dwelling. These shows aren't made as documentaries into examinations of the vast landscape of American culture, they are used as a method to make fun of people who, most Americans, would consider themselves better than.
Take "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" for example. Just the name, Honey Boo Boo, lets you know this is not high brow entertainment. The people in the family seem sweet enough, and I almost feel sorry for becoming a laughing stock. The mother is a nothing impressive, and feeds her family meals void of any nutritional value. She doesn't take care of herself, and seems unfazed that her 17 year old daughter is about to give birth, perpetuating a cycle of teen pregnancy and poverty. This family lives in cramped quarters with cheap furnishings, yet they have plenty of money to throw into their youngest daughter's beauty pageants. When a pageant dress for a toddler can be over $500, any sensible person has to shake their head at the decision making process.
Herein lies the fascination and obsession with these white trash reality t.v. shows. Many Americans sit at home laughing at the stupidity of a family that would choose to eat generic macaroni and cheese for dinner every night in favor of buying $100 per session pageant consultations, and feel better about their own lives and circumstances. Our nation, as a whole, is not doing well. The financial crisis plunged millions into income insecurity and economic crisis, so it's not a surprise that industry has responded by giving out more opium for the masses. It's easy to look at Honey Boo Boo's family, and think, 'I make much better decisions than they do', or to watch an episode of "Teen Mom" and feel superior to the young couple who chooses to purchase matching tattoos, then in the next scene struggles to buy diapers. All of these shows perpetuate the idea that despite our houses being underwater, benefits getting cut, rampant unemployment, and politicians threatening to cut every social safety net in favor of funding war, somehow, we aren't as bad off as we thought.
In previous generations, there was mindless television, but it was counter balanced with real news shows, and programs that celebrated decent, middle of the road families. All of that is gone in this new era where the "I gots to get mine, and fuck you" attitude, accompanied by a famewhore culture, is prevalent. Kids aspire to be famous and rich instead of facing the dour reality that the job market sucks, a higher education means possibly decades of crushing debt, and in the end, even if you are responsible and play by the rules, Wall Street criminals can steal your future with no repercussion.
Part of me doesn't blame people for watching these shows to feel better about life, because life, at this point, is a depressing thing. However, I wish that Americans would get off their lazy asses and take to the streets the same way people have in Europe. Just once I would like to see one of these reality shows feature a poor family that wasn't obliviously happy, which they all seem to be. I would like to see Honey Boo Boo's mother complaining about the lack of affordable healthcare, or get upset that her rural community doesn't put an emphasis on higher education. However, I am realistic enough to know that if she did begin talking about real world issues, her show would be cancelled in a heartbeat. These shows are meant as nothing more than a modern day freak display, and we are to watch them, feel good about our lives, and remain asleep.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Explaining the Unexplainable
As the mother of Jewish kids, you know that eventually, you are going to have to discuss the holocaust. I was strolling through Target with Rachael the other day when she turns to me and says, "Did you hear that everyone is mad at Justin Bieber, because he went to some girl's house and said something bad?".
I explained Bieber's visit to the Anne Frank house, and why his comment was egocentric and myopic. Our conversation then turned to Anne, herself. I had read Anne's diary when I was 10 years old, and remember that it was one of the first books that made a significant impact on me. 30 years later, I still recall various passages from Anne's diary. I told Rachael about Anne and her family hiding in the attic of her father's business with another family and two other men. I told her about their life in hiding; how they had to limit their movement during the day and weren't allowed to go to the bathroom until everyone left work. I told her about the brave woman, Miep Gies, who risked her own life to keep the Franks and the other hiders alive.
She asked if Anne's father and Miep were still alive. No, and I'll have to Google it. She asked me why they published a little girl's personal diary. It was one of the best records as to what it was like for Jews in hiding during the holocaust. If Anne was alive today, how old would she be. In her 80s. How did she die? She died from starvation and typhoid, which is a nasty thing you get from eating rotten food, because that is all she had to eat. Have you ever been to Anne's house? Yes, Daddy and I went to Amsterdam when I was 30, and my main priority was to see Anne's house.
Then her questions turned to the holocaust, in general. Explaining the holocaust is kind of like explaining algebra. I don't understand either one, except that eventually algebra has a logic and a reason to it, whereas the holocaust doesn't. How do you tell your little girl that had she been born, not even a century prior, in Europe that she would have been rounded up and systematically murdered?
During our conversation, she said so many times that she didn't understand, but neither do I. I've never understood baseless hatred, and I don't think I ever will. I tried to give her some of the usual reasoning about Jews having gained so much wealth and prosperity in Germany during a depression that the envy of the German people made the successful minority a target. I gave her the philosophical religious reasoning that when the Jewish people divide themselves, they open themselves up to destruction. I spared her the secret conspiracy reasoning that Hitler was, himself, at least part Jewish, but despite all of the explanations, she still told me she didn't understand why.
I told her that I would buy her a copy of Anne's diary if she wanted to read it. Rachael said she didn't want to read it now. She would like to read it later, because when she's older she will probably understand it better. I smiled and said, "okay", because I don't have the heart to tell her that no matter how old she is, she will never understand the holocaust.
I explained Bieber's visit to the Anne Frank house, and why his comment was egocentric and myopic. Our conversation then turned to Anne, herself. I had read Anne's diary when I was 10 years old, and remember that it was one of the first books that made a significant impact on me. 30 years later, I still recall various passages from Anne's diary. I told Rachael about Anne and her family hiding in the attic of her father's business with another family and two other men. I told her about their life in hiding; how they had to limit their movement during the day and weren't allowed to go to the bathroom until everyone left work. I told her about the brave woman, Miep Gies, who risked her own life to keep the Franks and the other hiders alive.
She asked if Anne's father and Miep were still alive. No, and I'll have to Google it. She asked me why they published a little girl's personal diary. It was one of the best records as to what it was like for Jews in hiding during the holocaust. If Anne was alive today, how old would she be. In her 80s. How did she die? She died from starvation and typhoid, which is a nasty thing you get from eating rotten food, because that is all she had to eat. Have you ever been to Anne's house? Yes, Daddy and I went to Amsterdam when I was 30, and my main priority was to see Anne's house.
Then her questions turned to the holocaust, in general. Explaining the holocaust is kind of like explaining algebra. I don't understand either one, except that eventually algebra has a logic and a reason to it, whereas the holocaust doesn't. How do you tell your little girl that had she been born, not even a century prior, in Europe that she would have been rounded up and systematically murdered?
During our conversation, she said so many times that she didn't understand, but neither do I. I've never understood baseless hatred, and I don't think I ever will. I tried to give her some of the usual reasoning about Jews having gained so much wealth and prosperity in Germany during a depression that the envy of the German people made the successful minority a target. I gave her the philosophical religious reasoning that when the Jewish people divide themselves, they open themselves up to destruction. I spared her the secret conspiracy reasoning that Hitler was, himself, at least part Jewish, but despite all of the explanations, she still told me she didn't understand why.
I told her that I would buy her a copy of Anne's diary if she wanted to read it. Rachael said she didn't want to read it now. She would like to read it later, because when she's older she will probably understand it better. I smiled and said, "okay", because I don't have the heart to tell her that no matter how old she is, she will never understand the holocaust.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
No Right to Protest
I have participated in so many protests throughout the course of my life that I don't even remember my first one. I'm pretty sure it might have been the day I skipped high school with friends to go to Boise to protest the fact that Idaho did not recognize Martin Luther King Day, but there might have been a protest or two prior to that, because my mother was a radical before she became a beat down agoraphobic.
To me, protesting has always been one of the best ways to let the power structure know how you truly feel about an issue. There is nothing more powerful, or more frightening, than hundreds or thousands of pissed off people showing up to let you know exactly what's wrong with a given situation or issue. I am a fan of protesting, but lately there is one group of protestors that I'm feeling should have their protesting license yanked.
Every weekday I drive past Planned Parenthood to retrieve my youngest from preschool. About half of the time, there are protestors holding various signage. I usually mutter phrases of vile hatred under my breath about them needing to mind their own fucking business, or how dare they harass women going in for medical treatment since abortion is only a very tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood actually does, or even, that men shouldn't have the right protest at all because they don't have vaginas to deal with. The group bugging me the worst lately are the Catholics.
I grew up with Catholics, a certain percentage of my family is Catholic, and I'm well versed on Catholic dogma. I know what the beliefs, customs and practices are, and I have nothing against anyone who is Catholic. Whatever inspires you to go on from day to day, more power to you. However, between the Catholics protesting in front of Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church's continued effort to make contraception exempt from healthcare legislation, it's time for someone to call this church on its moral hypocrisy.
How dare any institution that is responsible for the systematic rape of children over decade after decade lecture me on what is moral. The church was aware that they had priests who were raping children, yet instead of stepping in to stop it, they moved the priests to a whole new crop of children to rape. Then when those children became very damaged adults and tried to take the issue public, the Catholic Church retaliated against them and their families. I have seen the stories of some of these victims and it sickens one to the core. One story I will never forget is that of a 54 year old man whose life, from the age of 7, was a nightmare. He was repeatedly raped by his local priest for years. When he tried to tell his parents, they punished him, so he never spoke of the abuse until he joined a lawsuit against the church when he was in his early 50s. After the abuse ended, with a priest transfer, he went on to have two broken marriages, three kids he barely spoke too, floated from job to job, and was an alcoholic. Despite, finally getting some acknowledgement of the wrong that had been forced upon him, the damage was done, and I wonder today if that man is even still alive.
I think of that man, who had he lived a childhood without being raped, probably would have been a proud man with a fulfilling life, whenever I see those protestors carrying their Virgin Mary statues and praying in front of Planned Parenthood or when I read articles where a Catholic Church official is talking about how immoral it is to have employers pay for a female employee's birth control pills, like it's any of their fucking business in the first place.
I know the Catholic Church is in damage control mode right now; electing a South American pope to keep their Hispanic churches from bleeding members, which it has been doing for the past 10 years since the child rape scandal broke, and paying off lawsuits, while excommunicating a rapist priest here and there, but then they shoot themselves in the foot by continuing to exercise influence they just don't have anymore. They also seem to let their ego get in the way by giving someone like Cardinal Roger Mahoney a slap on the wrist, then flying him to Rome to vote in the papal conclave. It's as if the church is only doling out punishments to repair its image in the press, but is not at all interested in the systemic changes that need to take place in order to make it a worthy institution.
The sad thing is that, like most systems that have become corrupt and bloated, it will not see its own death coming. On the tip of my brain, I know at least a dozen, once devout, Catholics that have left the church and want nothing to do with them. Most of it has been due to the child rape issue, but nearly half of the people I know who have left the church are women who are tired of hearing that they are only good for breeding and obedience, and that no matter how hard they try, they will never be good enough to become leaders within their faith.
In the second decade of the new millennium, there are a few things we know. We know that child rape is the worst thing in the world, women have the right to choose how many children they want to have, and no human being, no matter who they are, is infallible. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church finds itself on the wrong side of the modern world, and it needs to take a long, hard look at itself in order to determine how it will survive into the future. Until then, the church needs to stop believing that they still hold the power to influence policy, particularly when it comes to issues of morality.
To me, protesting has always been one of the best ways to let the power structure know how you truly feel about an issue. There is nothing more powerful, or more frightening, than hundreds or thousands of pissed off people showing up to let you know exactly what's wrong with a given situation or issue. I am a fan of protesting, but lately there is one group of protestors that I'm feeling should have their protesting license yanked.
Every weekday I drive past Planned Parenthood to retrieve my youngest from preschool. About half of the time, there are protestors holding various signage. I usually mutter phrases of vile hatred under my breath about them needing to mind their own fucking business, or how dare they harass women going in for medical treatment since abortion is only a very tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood actually does, or even, that men shouldn't have the right protest at all because they don't have vaginas to deal with. The group bugging me the worst lately are the Catholics.
I grew up with Catholics, a certain percentage of my family is Catholic, and I'm well versed on Catholic dogma. I know what the beliefs, customs and practices are, and I have nothing against anyone who is Catholic. Whatever inspires you to go on from day to day, more power to you. However, between the Catholics protesting in front of Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church's continued effort to make contraception exempt from healthcare legislation, it's time for someone to call this church on its moral hypocrisy.
How dare any institution that is responsible for the systematic rape of children over decade after decade lecture me on what is moral. The church was aware that they had priests who were raping children, yet instead of stepping in to stop it, they moved the priests to a whole new crop of children to rape. Then when those children became very damaged adults and tried to take the issue public, the Catholic Church retaliated against them and their families. I have seen the stories of some of these victims and it sickens one to the core. One story I will never forget is that of a 54 year old man whose life, from the age of 7, was a nightmare. He was repeatedly raped by his local priest for years. When he tried to tell his parents, they punished him, so he never spoke of the abuse until he joined a lawsuit against the church when he was in his early 50s. After the abuse ended, with a priest transfer, he went on to have two broken marriages, three kids he barely spoke too, floated from job to job, and was an alcoholic. Despite, finally getting some acknowledgement of the wrong that had been forced upon him, the damage was done, and I wonder today if that man is even still alive.
I think of that man, who had he lived a childhood without being raped, probably would have been a proud man with a fulfilling life, whenever I see those protestors carrying their Virgin Mary statues and praying in front of Planned Parenthood or when I read articles where a Catholic Church official is talking about how immoral it is to have employers pay for a female employee's birth control pills, like it's any of their fucking business in the first place.
I know the Catholic Church is in damage control mode right now; electing a South American pope to keep their Hispanic churches from bleeding members, which it has been doing for the past 10 years since the child rape scandal broke, and paying off lawsuits, while excommunicating a rapist priest here and there, but then they shoot themselves in the foot by continuing to exercise influence they just don't have anymore. They also seem to let their ego get in the way by giving someone like Cardinal Roger Mahoney a slap on the wrist, then flying him to Rome to vote in the papal conclave. It's as if the church is only doling out punishments to repair its image in the press, but is not at all interested in the systemic changes that need to take place in order to make it a worthy institution.
The sad thing is that, like most systems that have become corrupt and bloated, it will not see its own death coming. On the tip of my brain, I know at least a dozen, once devout, Catholics that have left the church and want nothing to do with them. Most of it has been due to the child rape issue, but nearly half of the people I know who have left the church are women who are tired of hearing that they are only good for breeding and obedience, and that no matter how hard they try, they will never be good enough to become leaders within their faith.
In the second decade of the new millennium, there are a few things we know. We know that child rape is the worst thing in the world, women have the right to choose how many children they want to have, and no human being, no matter who they are, is infallible. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church finds itself on the wrong side of the modern world, and it needs to take a long, hard look at itself in order to determine how it will survive into the future. Until then, the church needs to stop believing that they still hold the power to influence policy, particularly when it comes to issues of morality.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
I Need a Hero
Marvel Comics, you are officially on my shit list.
In whoring their Avenger series with, yet another, piece of merchandise, Marvel put out two t-shirts; a shirt for boys that shows the Avengers and reads, "Be A Hero", which is a good message to tell boys. They should want to be valiant and do the right thing. They should aspire to be brave, ambitious, and nobel. I have no problem with this shirt. If I had a boy, I would probably buy it for him. My bitch is with the shirt for little girls that shows the same Avengers group, but reads, "I Need a Hero".
When I see shit like this I have to do a double-take and wonder what fucking century I'm living in. In this day and age when women are expected to pull in just as much income as men, what are companies thinking by putting this kind of crap out? I looked at the story with both of these shirts in awe for awhile, mostly because I couldn't believe Marvel would do something so stupid, but also I had to wonder about the graphic designer that put this together.
Would the graphic designer who came up with this shirt really have their daughter wear it? When their daughter came to them and asked them if she could be a doctor when she grows up, would their response be, "Honey, you should marry a doctor, not be a doctor. After all, you are a girl." Highly doubtful any regular, non-religious extremist, person would say this, so why would this same person design a shirt that basically tells girls that the best thing to do is sit around waiting for a hero.
As the momma of two girls, I am raising them to take responsibly for their lives and solve their own problems. A few months ago I recorded Disney's "Cinderella", and I've watched it with my 3-year-old. I giggle through most of it, because it is so 1950s; the sweet girl waiting to be rescued from an abusive parent, yet still remaining obedient to the abusive parent until she can be rescued, while the king searches for a gal with good breedin' hips for his son. The best part of watching the movie with my toddler was when she turned to me in the end and asked me if Cinderella kills her vicious stepmother and stepsisters for being mean to her. I had once read somewhere that Cinderella forgives the hags, but I told my girl that Cinderella had them banished from the kingdom.
Point is, girls aren't made to sit by idly and wait for anything these days, so I don't get why Marvel or any company thinks that these Cinderella/1950s messages are okay. Most of the women I know work making just as much, and sometimes more, money as their husbands. They have the same level of education, and are expected to contribute equally. On top of all the financial commitments, they are still expected to raise kids, help keep the house running, and make sure the family socializes. The reality is that women, particularly in today's economy, don't have the luxury of staying at home with their breedin' hips ready waiting for a hero.
Even if my girls luck out and marry great guys who pull down enough bank to give my girls an option to be stay-at-home moms, I still want them to be able to solve their own problems. Life is long and filled with complications and strange situations, and the last thing we need is a world full of girls waiting for their heroes.
In whoring their Avenger series with, yet another, piece of merchandise, Marvel put out two t-shirts; a shirt for boys that shows the Avengers and reads, "Be A Hero", which is a good message to tell boys. They should want to be valiant and do the right thing. They should aspire to be brave, ambitious, and nobel. I have no problem with this shirt. If I had a boy, I would probably buy it for him. My bitch is with the shirt for little girls that shows the same Avengers group, but reads, "I Need a Hero".
When I see shit like this I have to do a double-take and wonder what fucking century I'm living in. In this day and age when women are expected to pull in just as much income as men, what are companies thinking by putting this kind of crap out? I looked at the story with both of these shirts in awe for awhile, mostly because I couldn't believe Marvel would do something so stupid, but also I had to wonder about the graphic designer that put this together.
Would the graphic designer who came up with this shirt really have their daughter wear it? When their daughter came to them and asked them if she could be a doctor when she grows up, would their response be, "Honey, you should marry a doctor, not be a doctor. After all, you are a girl." Highly doubtful any regular, non-religious extremist, person would say this, so why would this same person design a shirt that basically tells girls that the best thing to do is sit around waiting for a hero.
As the momma of two girls, I am raising them to take responsibly for their lives and solve their own problems. A few months ago I recorded Disney's "Cinderella", and I've watched it with my 3-year-old. I giggle through most of it, because it is so 1950s; the sweet girl waiting to be rescued from an abusive parent, yet still remaining obedient to the abusive parent until she can be rescued, while the king searches for a gal with good breedin' hips for his son. The best part of watching the movie with my toddler was when she turned to me in the end and asked me if Cinderella kills her vicious stepmother and stepsisters for being mean to her. I had once read somewhere that Cinderella forgives the hags, but I told my girl that Cinderella had them banished from the kingdom.
Point is, girls aren't made to sit by idly and wait for anything these days, so I don't get why Marvel or any company thinks that these Cinderella/1950s messages are okay. Most of the women I know work making just as much, and sometimes more, money as their husbands. They have the same level of education, and are expected to contribute equally. On top of all the financial commitments, they are still expected to raise kids, help keep the house running, and make sure the family socializes. The reality is that women, particularly in today's economy, don't have the luxury of staying at home with their breedin' hips ready waiting for a hero.
Even if my girls luck out and marry great guys who pull down enough bank to give my girls an option to be stay-at-home moms, I still want them to be able to solve their own problems. Life is long and filled with complications and strange situations, and the last thing we need is a world full of girls waiting for their heroes.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Two Ladies Dead, But Only One Was Great
Yesterday, I woke to the news of Lady Margaret Thatcher's passing. A few hours later, the news scroll told of Annette Funicello's death to MS. Both of these ladies played a significant role in American pop culture. Annette was a Disney icon, a 60's beach movie darling, and a spokesperson for a nostalgic vision of America that no longer existed. Thatcher was a Ronald Reagan ally, the quintessential "Iron Lady"who led Britain during the Cold War. Both gone, but only one was great.
I grew up indoctrinated with the belief that anything associated with Ronald Reagan and the U.S., particularly during the Cold War, was good. It was very black and white. The USSR was bad, and if they had the chance, they would kill us with nukes. I was 11 years old when the movie "The Day After" came on t.v., and my mother wouldn't let me watch it. Looking back, it amazes that the U.S. can scoff at other countries' use of outrageous propaganda, while showing movies like "The Day After" on network television during the height of the Cold War.
Part of the propaganda of good vs. evil was Margaret Thatcher. We didn't know much about her politics, but we knew she was good, because she was an ally of Reagan. We knew she was a woman to look up to, because she was the first female Prime Minister in Britain, but we never knew her stance or work on women's issues. Once she left office, Americans were left with a favorable view of Margaret Thatcher, mainly from their lack of knowledge about her domestic policies in Great Britain. Let's face it, we all enjoyed Meryl Streep's performance, but were left wondering why the movie seemed like a snip-it reel that never really explored the results of her policies on the British people years later.
Much like Reagan, Thatcher was a strong-willed capitalist who believed the market was god. She tried her best to make Britain into a capitalist system by breaking the mining and manufacturing industries, ignoring the poor, and coddling the wealthy. Fast forward 30 years later, and the ruin and rot brought by Thatcher and Reagan's policies are evident city by city, town by town, and family by family. The U.S. and England are no longer the powerhouses they once were, and the inability of the two countries to repair themselves, both on an infrastructure level and a cultural level, is shameful. Thatcher may have been known to the U.S. as a great leader, but when you break it down, her "greatness" was superficial, at best.
Annette, on the other hand, did not rule a country, never had to enact policy during difficult times, or make decisions that would have long-reaching effects on the lives of millions. Some would laugh at the comparison of Thatcher with Annette, but again, in the U.S., Thatcher was more of a pop culture figure than a politician, so it's relevant.
Annette was discovered by Walt Disney and rose to fame as one of the original Mouseketeers, she later went on to star in several quirky beach films with Frankie Avalon. I remember Annette from Mickey Mouse Club reruns, and as the beautiful lady with the friendly smile who became synonymous with childhood, Disney, and Italian heritage.
Annette was a genuinely nice person. In all of the commentary with her passing, the one thing everyone who ever met her talks about was how nice she was. In a world full of snark where insults are traded as humor on a regular basis, being nice has become an anomaly. Annette never took herself too seriously. I loved her movie "Back to the Beach", because she basically spent 90 minutes making fun of her own persona. There aren't too many people, particularly celebrities, who would bypass their own egos and question their own relevance the way Annette did in that movie.
I was sad to hear of her diagnosis with MS, because it's a disease that only gives you one direction to go. I nearly cried when I saw her in her last public appearance to celebrate a milestone anniversary for Disneyland, because by then, she was wheelchair bound. Despite her tough battle with MS, she would do a Christmas Card campaign every year where she would round up celebrities, have them create Christmas cards, and sell them online at holiday times to raise money for MS organizations.
Annette's legacy is a positive view of what America was and could be if we would all just get back to being a little nicer. Whereas Thatcher's legacy will forever be associated with the Reagan-era policies that changed us from a culture of community to a culture of self. Although the media is fawning over Thatcher, in this day and age, I think we need a little less iron and a little more nice.
I grew up indoctrinated with the belief that anything associated with Ronald Reagan and the U.S., particularly during the Cold War, was good. It was very black and white. The USSR was bad, and if they had the chance, they would kill us with nukes. I was 11 years old when the movie "The Day After" came on t.v., and my mother wouldn't let me watch it. Looking back, it amazes that the U.S. can scoff at other countries' use of outrageous propaganda, while showing movies like "The Day After" on network television during the height of the Cold War.
Part of the propaganda of good vs. evil was Margaret Thatcher. We didn't know much about her politics, but we knew she was good, because she was an ally of Reagan. We knew she was a woman to look up to, because she was the first female Prime Minister in Britain, but we never knew her stance or work on women's issues. Once she left office, Americans were left with a favorable view of Margaret Thatcher, mainly from their lack of knowledge about her domestic policies in Great Britain. Let's face it, we all enjoyed Meryl Streep's performance, but were left wondering why the movie seemed like a snip-it reel that never really explored the results of her policies on the British people years later.
Much like Reagan, Thatcher was a strong-willed capitalist who believed the market was god. She tried her best to make Britain into a capitalist system by breaking the mining and manufacturing industries, ignoring the poor, and coddling the wealthy. Fast forward 30 years later, and the ruin and rot brought by Thatcher and Reagan's policies are evident city by city, town by town, and family by family. The U.S. and England are no longer the powerhouses they once were, and the inability of the two countries to repair themselves, both on an infrastructure level and a cultural level, is shameful. Thatcher may have been known to the U.S. as a great leader, but when you break it down, her "greatness" was superficial, at best.
Annette, on the other hand, did not rule a country, never had to enact policy during difficult times, or make decisions that would have long-reaching effects on the lives of millions. Some would laugh at the comparison of Thatcher with Annette, but again, in the U.S., Thatcher was more of a pop culture figure than a politician, so it's relevant.
Annette was discovered by Walt Disney and rose to fame as one of the original Mouseketeers, she later went on to star in several quirky beach films with Frankie Avalon. I remember Annette from Mickey Mouse Club reruns, and as the beautiful lady with the friendly smile who became synonymous with childhood, Disney, and Italian heritage.
Annette was a genuinely nice person. In all of the commentary with her passing, the one thing everyone who ever met her talks about was how nice she was. In a world full of snark where insults are traded as humor on a regular basis, being nice has become an anomaly. Annette never took herself too seriously. I loved her movie "Back to the Beach", because she basically spent 90 minutes making fun of her own persona. There aren't too many people, particularly celebrities, who would bypass their own egos and question their own relevance the way Annette did in that movie.
I was sad to hear of her diagnosis with MS, because it's a disease that only gives you one direction to go. I nearly cried when I saw her in her last public appearance to celebrate a milestone anniversary for Disneyland, because by then, she was wheelchair bound. Despite her tough battle with MS, she would do a Christmas Card campaign every year where she would round up celebrities, have them create Christmas cards, and sell them online at holiday times to raise money for MS organizations.
Annette's legacy is a positive view of what America was and could be if we would all just get back to being a little nicer. Whereas Thatcher's legacy will forever be associated with the Reagan-era policies that changed us from a culture of community to a culture of self. Although the media is fawning over Thatcher, in this day and age, I think we need a little less iron and a little more nice.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Mahwige
I've been married for nearly 11 years. It is my second marriage. My first marriage was a four-year, "starter" marriage train wreck from which I learned exactly what I didn't want in a relationship. The first time I married, I did it to get away from smothering parents and to give myself the motivation to pursue my dreams. Looking back I wish I would have had the self-confidence to go after my goals on my own instead of using marriage as a means to an end, but life is filled with "shoulda-coulda-wouldas".
Point is, I didn't take marriage seriously when I was in my early 20s, but I was allowed to do it, because I was a woman marrying a man. Now that I am in a healthy, good marriage, and truly respect the institution of marriage, I cannot imagine being denied the privilege of spending my life with my spouse, which is why I am completely perplexed by the movement in this country to deny the benefits of marriage to two people who love each other and want to make a life together strictly because they are the same gender.
I have heard all of the bullshit arguments, the main one being about the "biblical" standard, which is hilarious. Let's look at that "biblical" standard. First off, I put "biblical" in quotes, because the version of the texts that is often used by the folks who always seem to be condemning others is very different from the original Aramaic and Hebrew texts, but the "bible" bangers often overlook that when it doesn't suit their needs.
Back to the "biblical" standard of marriage. Opponents of same sex marriage claim that their bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but think of who wrote the bible. Although the claim is that the bible was divinely inspired, the fact is that the oral interpretation, which became written at some point, was penned by men who had multiple wives. It was nothing, back in the ancient oldy times, to have at least four ladies refer to you as husband, and if you were particularly wealthy, you got the perk of concubines (i.e. women who were yours to sleep with, procreate with, but not have to marry). If you were very wealthy, you also got slaves, which you could molest at will.
Do you really think that these men, with all of their generous options for tail, would have limited themselves to a one man/one woman scenario? Not likely. There is also the fact that women, of that time, were not married to men they loved. Sure, the bible points out relationships like Ruth and Boaz, and Abraham and Sarah (but even the greatest patriarch had a mistress, who ended up being the matriarch of Islam). Most women were married off to men to increase their families finances or standing in the community. Much like in today's Afghanistan and other Third World countries, women were not of value in biblical times.
Oh, and to top it off, this same book that supposedly gives the edict of one man/one woman marriage also says that if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her, which is only a truth that male members of the Tea Party and the Taliban still adhere to.
Basically the claim of biblical marriage is completely full of shit, yet somehow the faithful have justified denying rights and happiness to couples they don't know and will never meet, because of biased religious beliefs. I'm sorry that the idea of two boys kissing gives you the willies, but it's none of your fucking business.
I support same sex marriage for several reasons, but the main one is that I don't believe in telling other people how to live their lives. If you want my opinion or advice, I'm more than happy to give it, after all, I am a middle-aged, Jewish woman. However, I have zero right to impose my beliefs on you. Isn't that what freedom means? The right to live your life without others imposing their beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on you.
I continue to be amazed by the fact that the people who claim to love freedom and G-d and guns and apple pie and 'don't tread on me' the most are always the ones who want to take that "bible" and force you to live by its standards, either by using it to prevent a loving couple from getting married or by preventing women from having a say over what she wants to do with her life and body.
I have no doubt in my mind that same sex marriage will become the law of the land within the next 10 years, and I hope it will be sooner than later. Love is love, and if you could bring the guys who lived 2,000 years ago, and wrote a book that has been misinterpreted several times over, into today's world, they would probably agree with that, after they stopped being amazed by the intense amount of cat posts on Facebook.
Point is, I didn't take marriage seriously when I was in my early 20s, but I was allowed to do it, because I was a woman marrying a man. Now that I am in a healthy, good marriage, and truly respect the institution of marriage, I cannot imagine being denied the privilege of spending my life with my spouse, which is why I am completely perplexed by the movement in this country to deny the benefits of marriage to two people who love each other and want to make a life together strictly because they are the same gender.
I have heard all of the bullshit arguments, the main one being about the "biblical" standard, which is hilarious. Let's look at that "biblical" standard. First off, I put "biblical" in quotes, because the version of the texts that is often used by the folks who always seem to be condemning others is very different from the original Aramaic and Hebrew texts, but the "bible" bangers often overlook that when it doesn't suit their needs.
Back to the "biblical" standard of marriage. Opponents of same sex marriage claim that their bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but think of who wrote the bible. Although the claim is that the bible was divinely inspired, the fact is that the oral interpretation, which became written at some point, was penned by men who had multiple wives. It was nothing, back in the ancient oldy times, to have at least four ladies refer to you as husband, and if you were particularly wealthy, you got the perk of concubines (i.e. women who were yours to sleep with, procreate with, but not have to marry). If you were very wealthy, you also got slaves, which you could molest at will.
Do you really think that these men, with all of their generous options for tail, would have limited themselves to a one man/one woman scenario? Not likely. There is also the fact that women, of that time, were not married to men they loved. Sure, the bible points out relationships like Ruth and Boaz, and Abraham and Sarah (but even the greatest patriarch had a mistress, who ended up being the matriarch of Islam). Most women were married off to men to increase their families finances or standing in the community. Much like in today's Afghanistan and other Third World countries, women were not of value in biblical times.
Oh, and to top it off, this same book that supposedly gives the edict of one man/one woman marriage also says that if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her, which is only a truth that male members of the Tea Party and the Taliban still adhere to.
Basically the claim of biblical marriage is completely full of shit, yet somehow the faithful have justified denying rights and happiness to couples they don't know and will never meet, because of biased religious beliefs. I'm sorry that the idea of two boys kissing gives you the willies, but it's none of your fucking business.
I support same sex marriage for several reasons, but the main one is that I don't believe in telling other people how to live their lives. If you want my opinion or advice, I'm more than happy to give it, after all, I am a middle-aged, Jewish woman. However, I have zero right to impose my beliefs on you. Isn't that what freedom means? The right to live your life without others imposing their beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on you.
I continue to be amazed by the fact that the people who claim to love freedom and G-d and guns and apple pie and 'don't tread on me' the most are always the ones who want to take that "bible" and force you to live by its standards, either by using it to prevent a loving couple from getting married or by preventing women from having a say over what she wants to do with her life and body.
I have no doubt in my mind that same sex marriage will become the law of the land within the next 10 years, and I hope it will be sooner than later. Love is love, and if you could bring the guys who lived 2,000 years ago, and wrote a book that has been misinterpreted several times over, into today's world, they would probably agree with that, after they stopped being amazed by the intense amount of cat posts on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)