I know all parents mess their kids up to a degree, but it's not supposed to be this intentional

So I've discovered several things today.

1. The revamp of Beavis and Butthead wherein they pan shows like Jersey Shore, et al, is probably something that I will watch. I don't know why. Raincoat Jed likes to send me links to things that spark my interest, like anything that involves the quote, “If they did this chart long enough, they could find out how herpes began.”

2. I don't know if it's because I'm getting older, but apparently my body hates corn chips like Godzilla movies hate continuity.

3. I noticed that someone posted a link to this gem:

"Two classic fairytales have been re-imagined or “sweetened” rather for today’s tots: , “Rapunzel,” by Sarah Gibb and “Twelve Dancing Princesses” by Brigette Barrager. According to The New York Times, these authors have assumed a “gentler” narrative for these gorgeously-illustrated picture books. Yet, despite tactics to make these stories more kid-accessible, sexist attitudes about women and passivity remain.

Pamela Paul at The Times observes:
'As Gibb would have it, the princesses are passive innocents and unaware of the spell – sleepdancing, as it were. They can be rescued only by the handsome young cobbler, Pip, who toils away mending their worn-out shoes. This ends — can you guess? – in a joyous wedding between Pip and the princess Poppy. “And, of course, they all lived happily ever after.” Very attractively, though inactively, so.'

I find it quite telling that sex and violence have been removed from these tales but stereotypes about women remain a kosher part of storytelling. There may no graphic scenes in these picture books but children learning that “passive” princesses can only be rescued from spells by a “handsome young cobbler” is just as damaging. Revamp indeed. Reads like the same old trajectory to me."

First of all, I’ve read the original “Twelve Dancing Princesses.” It is quite possible that it’s been “softened” because there’s not many parents who want to read a story to their daughters about a bunch of chicks who sneak out to party every night. This does not bespeak sexism.

In fact, it looks an awful lot like:

Yeah, that stamp? It may show up a lot.

As another (female) commenter put it:

“So…you wanted them to actually tell a different story? Should only the aggressive princesses have been saved? Should they have scorned the man, and belittled him, before declaring him worthless and then rescuing themselves? Perhaps the prince should have been nerdy and sensitive and passive to his ball-busting career princess, maybe even changing HIS last name this time around? Don’t you think you’re reaching a little to find the insult in this? What kind of damage does this cause again? Let me get this straight: you believe this encourages little girls to believe that passivity is required in order to win the affections of a handsome man…which is wrong…but you wouldn’t assume that this story teaches little girls that magic spells are real, right?? Why does it teach one concept, but not the other? Why not assume that little girls would learn that dancing is bad because you have to be rescued from it? Why wouldn’t they assume that the story is telling them that dancing is fun, and handsome men are lame for interrupting?? Its just so arbitrary to assume that ALL little girls will discern THAT particular message from a story.
Let’s just re-write all books. That way no one’s feelings will be hurt. Like the Third Reict (sp). Any and all stories and books that portray the women as anything less than demi-gods worthy of only the highest respect must be altered or destroyed, along with the authors. Let’s start with the Bible. Then we’ll move on to Shakespeare. After that we’ll change all the history books.”

Second, I love Grimm Fairytales (the originals) because they're so dark and frankly weird. The original Rapunzel, for instance, has Rapunzel getting knocked up by the prince (mazel tov, it's twins). The witch comes back, throws Rapunzel out and blinds the prince. They're separated for a while, but Rapunzel is the one who finds him later (along with their kids) and restores his sight. Then they live happily ever after.
If there's a moral to that story, it's that you have to go through a lot of bullshit in order to get your share of happiness; and let's face it, if you tell your kids that when they're young, it'll come as much less of a surprise later.

If the author of articles like this and the one at the Times is going to cherrypick just one story here and there that they think depicts a princess or two as too "passive" as being sexist, then it's not just reaching, it's bad reporting. If there's a parent out there who really finds the more modern, sanitized fairy tales to be so offensive, then just read your kids the originals.

By the way, the original Grimm's Brothers version of the Pied Piper has the townspeople refusing to pay the piper after he rids the town of rats. So he plays a different tune and leads all their children dancing away into a mountain, whereupon they are never seen again. Vengeance complete, the piper presumably goes on his merry way while the parents wail in grief.

Now, I'd probably read a toddler something about dancing princesses simply because small children just don't analyze things the way adults do. You know why? 'Cause anything that poops itself and likes Barney is not, I repeat not, going to be lecturing in Oxford about the intricacies of literature any time soon.

But I guess if you prefer fairy tales to teach your kids the fine principles of "an eye for an eye and possibly also a leg just to be thorough," then, you know, you have options. Original fairy tales, Rambo movies, religion.

When the children hear about Jesus and how lovin' and carin' he was . . . how he gave his all to God's children and how it got him nailed to a tree, it will be amazin' to see whose eyes light up with hope and whose burn with newfound survival instincts.
--Fred MacIntire, Something Positive

Speaking of S*P, Milholland also did this awesome take on Sleeping Beauty. Also, by quoting his characters and linking to stuff he’s done that I think is cool, I’m not saying that he shares any of my opinions or that I actually know him in any way. Do not pester the Randy just ‘cause of this blog, OK thank you.
Though he replied to me once on Twitter and it totally made my day ‘cause he’s awesome.

Note: If anyone gives a crap about what the rapunzel plant is, it’s an old name for Rampion (Campanula rapunculus), which is apparently a sort of salad green.

Tweet

Sometimes I really hate women. Well, everyone really, but today...

‘Pop stars such as Rihanna and Britney talk about empowering women, but by dressing up in stockings and rubber bodices while dancing provocatively they are pandering to a male fantasy.’
--Louise O’Connell, beauty editor for Glamour UK.

The above quote is from an article on Yahoo! Lifestyle titled, “Why I’m a feminist.”
Now, I don’t wholly disagree with the article. It’s true that once in a while, you will run up against some incredibly awful attitudes based entirely around your gender. It’s also true that women in the US can do nearly everything and anything they like, which is good. However, attempting to explain away looking like a prat with the excuse of “I’m empowered” is a cop out.
It also makes women look stupid. So thanks a lot, all you pop-tarts out there.

Being judged according to different ideals according to gender is nothing new. This happens to both (or all three, if you like) genders. However, part of the “dirty connotation” in the word “feminist” is due entirely to the effects of radical feminism, the winding tentacles of which are why we still have those unusually irritating self-proclaimed feminists who react to what are basically normal relationship dynamics like demons to holy water thrown by the Winchester brothers.

❦In every society, there are groups that are reviled.

In the LBGT community, Transgender individuals may not be as accepted. In the straight community, they may be ostracized. In both, they may be viewed as novelties or as living sex toys.

In areas of countries like Afghanistan or India, the practice of child brides is still in heavy swing. Often, these girls may experience severe injuries from being raped by their new husbands on their wedding nights, or even death from ruptured organs. They may be as young as 5 in some cases.

Most cases of domestic abuse involve battered women and children. A whopping 40% involves battered men, shattering the idea that only men are the aggressors in abuse. Yet women are pretty likely to get away with it if they are the abusers simply because they’re female and society views them as basically harmless, or at least more docile and therefore more likely to be a victim.

Women and children lead in statistics for being victims of rape. However, it is a myth that men do not also get raped, but this is a fact that is largely ignored.

❦The article poses this question: ‘Do you believe men and women are equal?’

For the most part, yes. But I don’t think that they’re interchangeable. The fact is, you can’t claim that men have a monopoly on oppression when women will do the same thing. For instance, you can’t claim that men are inherently more likely to harm their children when “women—who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States—commit about 50 percent of all parental murders.” In addition, “women who kill their children in this country are disproportionately hospitalized or treated, while men who do so are disproportionately jailed, even executed.”
I could make a reference to the Casey Anthony trial here, but frankly, I’m sick of that idiot.

Point being, believing that men are women are equal does make you a feminist, but only by definition. The basic feminist ideology that started with the Suffrage movement (of which my great-grandmother, when she was my age, worked tirelessly to promote and had the great honor of seeing come to fruition in her lifetime) is usually misused. Modern, or radical feminism, is a political ideology rather than a personal one. It is not usually based in reality. And further, it often deals with paper tigers rather than actual issues. For instance, it’s perfectly fine for radical feminists to rant about how women get stared at or catcalled or groped on the street, but female circumcision* in another country? Honor killings? Forced prostitution? Human trafficking? They don’t often care, usually because complaining about it would mean that we, the big bad West, were being inconsiderate and not understanding another culture.
*I know Wikipedia is a crap source, but they have a lot of links in that one--and besides, it summarizes.

If you want to be a true feminist, you have to champion causes for both genders. You can’t judge the man who cheats on his wife more harshly than the woman who cheats on her husband. You can’t execute the father who killed his kid while the mother who committed the same crime only gets treatment. You can’t react to women being liberated from the Taliban by sending mostly makeup. You can’t ignore male victims of abuse and rape simply because they’re male. You can’t claim that abortion is only a woman’s issue when it involves both genders.
Welcome to equality.

❦I was going to include this in a different blog, but something that caught my eye recently was an article someone posted on Facebook, which unfortunately I did not bookmark and I’m refusing to go looking for out of stubbornness. The article involves the author talking about how, if women were not oppressed, the terms “femme” or “girly” would not be applied in a pejorative term to boys. The author then went on to say that the reason these terms were used is because society believes that being female is inherently “wrong” and lesser than being male.

Now, I don’t disagree that human sexuality is extremely diverse and is more difficult to classify for some people than others (ie, the gender binary may not apply to everyone, though it applies to me). I certainly don’t disagree with the idea that men naturally have a feminine side and women naturally have a male side--and both of these may come out in interests, mannerisms, etc. Considering that I’m typing this with my legs crossed like a man (ankle on knee) and had my hair cut short for years out of stubbornness (I’ve only recently grown it past my shoulders again), I’m no exception.

However, the idea that calling a boy “girly” means that being a girl is wrong would make more sense if the terms “butch” or “bull dyke” didn’t exist. Implying that a woman is unfeminine carries the connotation that male qualities are undesirable in women, essentially the old “I don’t like peas to touch my mashed potatoes” argument, but applied to gender and behavior.
Things overlap to a degree. They always have, and they always will.

Plus, some guys really do look like girls. And my God, have you ever seen Helen Thomas?

Women who can't cook and other tales of woe

I ran across this article, which talked about something that I’d been observing for the last 10 years.

While today's women are advancing in the workplace and making more money, a new study found that few of them know how to do the same domestic chores their mothers and grandmothers did every day.

Researchers found that only 51 percent of women under 30 knew how to cook a roast while 82 percent of baby boomer females thought it was a cinch.

Notably, the young women of today are more likely to simply buy something new instead of repairing it:

McCrindle also noted that because these women have bigger paychecks, they don't feel the need to have to bake a cake from scratch or iron their own clothing when instant mixes and dry cleaners are readily available.

"We live in a throw-away culture where, rather than repair something, we will buy a new one, even if it is just a matter of darning holes or sewing on buttons," he said. "As such, many women have lost these skills. If we do want something repaired, women today are more likely to take it to their local drycleaner because they are busy and can afford it."

Naturally, the article ended on a slightly snide note, asking “[If] Over 70 percent of women under 30 admit to taking out the trash, mowing the lawn and washing their own cars, [...] Why is sewing a button back on still a "lady skill" if we've taken over in all of these departments?”

My quick answer to that is that men’s big fingers don’t handle needles well, but I think Charlie Sheen disproves that theory.

What amused and irritated me was the comments on the article. A good amount were from men extolling not the personal satisfaction they get from a woman cooking for them, but the emotional satisfaction.
Predictably, some of the women agreed. And some of them went on rants about how men shouldn’t be cooked for, because apparently cooking for a member of the male gender immediately makes you June Cleaver.


Favorite comments (emphasis mine):

dannyfrom504 said:

i don't think i've evern [sic] had a woman who isn't related to me, cook for me. but then again, i cook quite well. hmmmmmmmmmm.

“E” promptly went ranty on his butt:

E said:

It's a good thing that you cook well for yourself and don't ever hold your breath on a woman cooking for you.....it will be very difficult to find June Cleaver these days...women just do not want all that crap like the women from generations ago....and frankly, I don't blame them! There is more to life than cooking OR cleaning for MEN!

Commenter Joe remarked on the above:

Joe said:

Lord Danny, you do you very best, tell the TRUTH about the matter and you get some female to tell you how WRONG you are! lol Well origamib [sic?] Danny is 100% correct, as far am I go [?] he is anyway. When I see my lady, and yes I MEAN lady, cooking for me and yes even cleaning for me, I not only find that sexy but also am very thankful! How can it be sewxy [sic] you ask? Simple, she's doing something for ME and what she's doing is something that no one "likes" or "wants" to do, she's doing it becuase [sic] she wants to help ME out and THAT is what's so sexy! It's a real shame I have to explain such a simple thing to you but oh well, maybe one day you'll find out that not all men are like to described in your post. Some men not only love their Lady but also respect and even ADORE her as well. So, maybe next time before you begin talking on how men are, maybe you should take a good look into the mirror and ask yourself WHY your man doesn't seem to look at you like we look at our ladies. Then again, I'm veery [sic] sure that you've got it all going on for yourself and have ALL the answers right.

Joe also posted again, saying:

Joe said:

No, it's NOT the females JOB to do the cooking. It would sure be NICE though if the female would cook becuase [sic] she wanted to cook some really nice food once in a while though. I can cook and do a fine job if it and I don't mind it either. What Iv'e [sic] found though is today, females say things like, "it's not my job" or some other very stupid thing. It has NOTHING at all to do with a "job" but rather why can['t] we BOTH cook for OUR family? Why can't they just do something nice becuase [sic] it's nice? Seems like there has always got to be a "reason" to do something for someone. All you females out there who don't cook becuase [sic] of (whatever reason you may have) you just don't get it. Maybe you females don't care all that much if your man cooks for you but by God us men DO care, we LOVE IT when you cook for us. Maybe that's why, maybe today if the female isn't gettting [more sic] something out of it other than a thank you and knowing how much your man loves it, it's just not worth it to you? I have NO IDEA of the real "why" only I know if a woman isn't willing to cook for me once in a while then she's not worth my time. Something as simple as cooking a meal and I'm just not "worth it" to her? Well excuse me lady, but there's the door.

504danny said:

christine- i have 2 sisters (i'm the eldest); and when my mom left my dad, she had ZERO life skills outside being a homemaker. she was on a mission to ensure me and sister's didn't have to depend on the opposite sex. i learned how to do laundry and clean. well, my youngest sis was cool with it, but my older sis wasn't. lol. when my mom tried to explain that there was a bigger picture involved, especially if she was planning on becoming a mother she said, "my husband's gonna have money, i'll get a maid." well reality finally set in when she married a man with 2 kids and she had to feed them; things got real, really quick. she was suddenly behind the bell curve. lol.

but i think what a lot of women forget, is that those "feminine skills" are VERY sexy to us. most women love when a guy does "man things". i used to chuckle the way my girl would just stare as i changed her car's oil, or would fix something at her apartment. it works the same for us. i'd never EXPECT my lady to cook or clean for me, but i really appreciate when she does. and it makes me want to do more to show her how glad i am that i have her in my life.

Commenter Chris pointed out the flip side, which is that a lot of men under 30 really do expect women to do everything for them. I call this learned idiocy.

chris said

@ Danny
your comment was sweet and you sound like a retro man. I can tell you this though.. now a days your luck if you can find a guy to do the so called man things. I know many young men including in my own family that would be sitting in the dark with no clothes and starve to death. The young men of today do not know how to be men they are all about their hair and clothes and material things but heaven forbid something breaks or needs to be cleaned...you wont find them doing it. I know my sis has three boys and a husband and who do I usually see outside mowing the grass or power washing the deck, shovel snow, all the while they are sitting on their butts asking her what is for breakfast lunch or dinner so then she gets to do that as well but now that she is in the house she gets to wash everyones [sic] clothes, vacume [sic] mop, dust, do the dishes and the list goes on and on she will then ask any one of them to take out the garbage (mind you just a short walk from the kitchen to the curb and the answer in reply is from them com'on [sic] cant you see we are in the middle of watching TV can't you take it out. This is her usually [sic] routine in addition to being a school teacher. so...with that said now tell me why on earth would anyone want to get married and have kids now a days I know I don't nor would I want my daughter I would tell her to go have a great life and then if you find someone who you can (not just be in fantasy love with) be a real partner where you compliment each other and pick up the slack where the other needs then great but it should never be one sided where the other one does all the caring and the other does all the taking.

Finally, one of the women doesn't start in whining about the men.

jgholt said:

I really have to agree with Danny and Joe. I am a woman, 50' ish..... I have found that none of the women today can cook a "for real" meal. I am so glad I grew up in a time where microwaves and packaged foods were not around. I think it is very rewarding to cook for a man and I am not married. I do foster care and I love to teach my foster teen girls to cook. Yes, I love to be taken out to dinner or have a man do the bar-be-cuing, but I can cook anything and everything and when I see him take that first bite and know that he realy [sic] appreciates a home cooked meal, well, that warms my heart.

oyvey61 said

I have to agree with 504danny - as busy as I am working full time and trying to fit school in too - there is nothing that makes my husband happier, and like me more than when I cook a meal and straighten up the house. It's not a sexist thing - Doing these things make him feel cared for and that intensifies his affection for me. It's simple math!

Roughly what I said:

I totally agree with Joe, Chris, and Danny. I do find men who can actually do "man things" like handy-work around the house, fixing their car, or even hunting to be sexier than their relatively foppish counterparts. You know why? Because they have skills that I think men should bother to learn. I can fix a cabinet and hang shelves myself, and indeed have a huge tool chest in the house at my disposal, but I like knowing that a man will do those things for me simply because he wants to (this is with the assumption that I have given the guy a reason to want to do things for me, and in my experience, being nice to them and treating them like people--something I think more women should try--is more than enough).

Oh, and I'm in my 20s. My early 20s. I left the man-hating and the irrational belief that every guy who appreciates a woman who can cook is part of "the Patriarchy" in my teens, along with too much makeup and a tendency to listen to Marilyn Manson. Seriously, girls, ease up on the men. They're NOT saying that they think women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. They're saying that as men, they perceive women who have domestic skills as extra nice because, well...whether or not you particularly like it, a good woman can be the difference between a house and a home. This is what I call a "guy instinct." Seriously, this kind of thing gives them emotional comfort. And that really is OK. If I get emotional comfort from being wrapped up in strong arms and reassured that whatever I'm worrying about at the moment is going to work out, then I'm not going to be a hypocrite and complain if giving a man a sandwich and a kiss brightens his day.

And do you know why I like men who do "man things?" Because I appreciate that they do them. I show my appreciation with hugs and cooking. Men show theirs in return by changing the oil in the car, etc. This is not a feminist issue. This is just how men and women interact. While there's exceptions to this dynamic in many cases, it's not "bad" or degrading for either.

Then again, I was raised in a family (single mother, grandmother, basically no father figure) where learning skills like sewing, cooking, and housework were NOT encouraged for their husband-snagging potential, but for their practicality. I learned to cook at 8 years old and I'm pretty durn good at it. But I was never once told that men were superior to women. More importantly, I was never told that women were superior to men, either--I was taught that we're all equals, though not interchangeable (men are better suited physically for working on oil rigs, etc). I was also taught by example that knowing how to do "woman things" and also owning and running one's own business is not mutually exclusive. Knowing these skills does not mean you're going to suddenly be some kind of so-called June Cleaver caricature.

Point is, women my age who can't cook, clean, or basically look after themselves are, in my opinion, less self-sufficient than they should be. (I also think men should know these things, but I grew up in Mormon culture, where the boys are often pretty coddled and only get a crash course when they go on their missions.) These are valid, useful skills that ought to be encouraged and admired, but they just aren't anymore. I've grown up watching girls in my age group never learning how to cook anything more than boil-n-bag meals and anything you can put in a microwave. I literally don't even know how to use a microwave because I already know how to cook food from scratch, so what do I need a microwave for!? And I definitely agree with the commenter who said that cooking for yourself results in less weight gain. I have a very organic, relatively low-fat diet. I'm 5'6", slim to average build, only a little jiggly, between 110-120 lbs and around a dress size 4 to a 6, depending. Knowing what goes into your food is invaluable for maintaining a healthy diet. And besides, cooking is FUN. Sewing is FUN (if tricky). Cleaning...ok, cleaning sucks, but it's important to know how to do it.

And for the record, I enjoy homemaking and am happiest when doing little things to make someone I care about happy. This does not make me a June Cleaver, thank you very much. It doesn't make me anything, except someone with more practical skills than most women in my age group. My only regret in regards for this topic is that I have no significant other at this time to unleash loads of pies, casseroles, mended trousers, and smoochies upon. Being a partner in a business is great, but it doesn't provide the emotional satisfaction of seeing the "Aw shucks, thank you!" expression on the face of the man you love when you do something nice for him. And yes, it really can be as simple as a little sandwich. Hardly anything to start a war of the sexes about.

I’ve been told before that my appreciation of men who act like men made me less as a woman. I find that offensive. No one, certainly no other woman, may tell me that I am not female enough for their tastes, especially if they view any shouldering of “traditional” roles as a betrayal. You know what, feminism is supposed to be about choice. If I can be educated according to my career decisions, gainfully employed, AND enjoy cooking for people I care about, then I don’t give a flip if anyone is offended. If anything, the fact that I can be the flirt, the domestic goddess, and the businesswoman makes me rather good at this woman stuff.