Levar Burton Reads - the bad or the ugly

First, the podcast link:  http://www.levarburtonpodcast.com/

I will talk about some of the good ones eventually because there have been very good ones (!), 

(such as The Lighthouse Keeper by Daisy Johnson, The Paper Menagerie by Ken Liu, The Truth About Owls by Amal Mohtar, and maybe the Murakami one, the Second Bakery Attack, and Lesley Nneka Arimah's What It Means When A Man Falls From the Sky)

but there are two that annoyed me quite a bit - especially when he praised the female representation and I felt it was pretty horrible.


Let's talk about #12, No Man's Guns  - A Western, so ick, right out of the gate. Not a fan.

Levar, in his commentary, says there are usually no women in westerns but this one had a prominent women's voice. Huh? I missed that. I think this is a horrible example of a woman's voice. She's not a prominent voice and isn't terribly developed as a character. She does show show contempt for her scumbag brother or whoever she travels with, which is good, but obviously she's still under his control. No agency. Depressing. Typical. 

The main character had quite a journey, getting comfortable with dying/ his fate and then having his word first disbelieved then proved true, justice done, and life saved in the end. 

All the woman had was this guy thinking some thoughts about marriage and that maybe she was feminine but talked a little too much. She didn't. His opinion on what makes a good woman is pretty stunted. She was more of a prop even than #3 below. I was not nearly as wowed by the woman's voice because I know I have a lot more thoughts every second that this guy gave the woman in a lifetime. Too much of a sexist stereotype to be a real character. 


#3 Empty Places

This is one he was kind of gushing over. I get it -- from his particular perspective how he gravitated to this theme. He's right that the mentor/ mentee thing in the two major characters is good - they end up being better people than you'd expect.

A secondary -- but maybe not so minor -- character was this queen. Even though her story wasn't as prominent, I felt she should have had more life -- been less of a prop for these other characters. She was writing this letter to a past male friend because she was unhappily married to a brutish and horrible king who forgot their son's birthday, among other things. She was only 16 or something, which again is pretty terrible. So the main characters stole this letter she wrote so that she is barred from her own growth, well-being and connections beyond castle walls -- and, importantly, sinking her chances of escape either mentally or physically from an unhappy and who know what else - marriage.

The two main characters conspire to steal the letter and leave a gift so that the queen will think the king remembered the son's birthday. This will cause her to show patience and kindness which will encourage the king to return the kindness. ??? Like WHAT IS THAT ???

Men aren't responsible for their own bad behavior? The only way to deal with bad men is to ignore the actual problem and be extra nice to them?? Give them more chances??

I think there are some good themes to explore here, like he said with the mentor relationships, but the one regarding the queen tells women they shouldn't expect more; just work harder and ignore your own suffering and the man will come around - maybe. If ignoring his coarseness and unfairness doesn't work, oh well, you can't leave! There's the kingdom to think about. What will your subjects say - how will this reflect on the king? Clearly, all that matters is making the king look good and everyone will pull together to see that this happens, even at the expense of a woman. Because who care about them; right?

Unless I missed something - that particular theme was garbage.

On the other hand, if she was caught corresponding with a male friend and if the punishment is beheading or medieval torture, maybe they DID help her, such as the "help" in those times was? Abuse in marriage rather than death. Life sucks either way in that case. I'd loved to have seen a little more consideration or compassion for the queen. As in many stories and maybe life, the woman here was just a prop in several men's stories.

Movie Nites: Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre

The next two are slashers - Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre

There seems to be something hyper masculine (dare I say toxic?) in saying you can watch a slasher movie with no substance and think it's funny or something. Be different! Say it's bad. Because it is.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/10/178587/horror-movies-death-by-sex-slut-shaming


Halloween

Long awaited. I'd never seen these, but of course they've been referenced and spoofed into oblivion. Everyone who says they love horror loves these two movies.

And there's really nothing there.

The killer with the bleached Capt Kirk mask killed his sister when she was a teenager (why??) and he was an 8 year old or something. He's put in an asylum and breaks out 15 yrs later and stalks a girl in his hometown as old as the sister was (maybe?) for, again, I don't know what reason. There is no reason. Are they trying to say violence is perpetrated by the mentally ill? Violence is senseless and has no discernible cause? Violence is entertaining? No. Just no.

There's lots of stalking (girl sees, her friends tell her they don't see) then senseless gore and one girl's friends dropping like flies. I feel like this is playing on women not being believed in sexual assaults and their expertise and observations being generally given less weight than men's - but it'snot so much calling attention to it, but rather using it as a given as part of the story.

Maybe there's slut shaming too? The girl that wanted to have sex I think is the one the guy murdered, ripped up his sister's gravestone and put on her bed with her in it. The studious girl who appeared not to want sex is the one who lived. Hm.

Some movies you can debate whether or not it's feminist or good. I don't think that's the case with these.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre

This one was a bit stressful. Being in the middle of nowhere, all the friends you're with are murdered one by one, then you're tortured and nearly killed. Yay! 

Even the man at the gas station when she runs away and thinks she's safe the first time is in on it, is part of the murdery family of men. 

There's lots of screaming, if that floats your boat. Lots. Her face - lots of close ups of her screaming. And more screaming. Women feel this kind of terror a lot I think. Not only that, but are warned of it and blamed for it, so it's tiring. She does get away, I guess, in the end. So that's good. For the franchise at least?

I connected with this book and quote a lot more:

"Women have always been the most important part of monster movies. As I walked home one night, I realized why. Making my way down dark city streets to my apartment in Brooklyn, I was alert and on edge. I was looking for suspicious figures, men that could be rapists, muggers or killers. I felt like Laurie Strode in Halloween. Horror is a pressure valve for society's fears and worries: monsters seeking to control our bodies, villains trying to assail us in the darkness, disease and terror resulting from the consequences of active sexuality, death. These themes are the staple of horror films.

There are people who witness these problems only in scary movies. But for much of the population, what is on the screen is merely an exaggerated version of their everyday lives. These are forces women grapple with daily. Watching Nancy Thompson escape Freddy Krueger's perverted attacks reminds me of how I daily fend off creeps asking me to smile for them on the subway. Women are the most important part of horror because, by and large, women are the ones the horror happens to. Women have to endure it, fight it, survive it — in the movies and in real life. They are at risk of attack from real-life monsters. In America, a woman is assaulted every nine seconds."

― Mallory O'Meara, The Lady from the Black Lagoon: 

Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick

I used to have a recurring dream about being chased. Sometimes I was caught, and when I was, I screamed and nothing came out of my mouth. The whole thing was just pure heart-pounding terror. Even when you wake up, it takes time to calm down. I've felt nearly the same in a parking deck, walking alone after dark on a college campus, being in public after a creep makes it known he's watching you. I've made my schedule around making sure I'm in a populated area but not too populated or in order to make sure I'm not running in a forest in the dark. I really don't need to watch these things to know what it's like to feel scared. Maybe men do? I'd rather think they watch to develop empathy than revel in the misogyny of slaughtering women for being sexually active. I'm probably too optimistic.

Movie Nite: Carrie

October movie nite:

Carrie

The release date is November 3, 1976, so it's a year older than me. That's kind of fun. Also November 3 is Godzilla's birthday.

I think I had seen this one before. It wasn't nearly as scary as I remembered. By far the best out of the several campy and several slashers we've seen this month. You probably can't go wrong with Stephen King. It was spooky, had a plot, and had some magic to mix things up a little. It didn't kill the women for having sex like some others, so That's a plus. Did it equate women with being witches emitting  a polluting substance as this article brings up? Maybe. I'll entertain that. I think greater was the comment on religion - that Carrie's ignorance that caused her shame was caused by her mother's abuse and religious beliefs. So, I don't know on balance whether this was necessarily a feminist flick. It could go either way.

Leaving the question of whether or not the movie is particularly feminist or not for a moment, my daughter had seen it done in some form in this show she likes, Riverdale. It's everywhere in pop culture. It was kind of fun to show her the original. 

It's got telekinesis and stuff and a little horrible religion messing people up. I like the way the people the mother evangelized to really didn't pay much attention. Mixing up the magic and religion is a pretty good choice - it makes you think about believers and manipulation and related things. She gets her period at the beginning and is kind of an outcast, so those are always good themes as well. Coming of age and feeling like an imposter are themes with a lot of material. Getting your period comes with a lot of those things represented in a person grappling with finding out they have a power and need to develop it - extra responsibilities, the need to learn a lot of things very quickly, extra dangers, etc. And as I type, it's interesting that I'm comparing a supernatural power to getting one's period because I've always thought of it as the opposite of a power. Maybe my thinking is influenced by the patriarchal culture.
It's always been an unfair burden, something that holds me back physically and or emotionally, gets in the way, has to be managed and planned for whether you want to or not so you don't bleed everywhere or get pregnant. The fact that the telekinesis came with her fist period was an interesting and maybe not insignificant plot point. 

I had imagined it as a bit scarier than it was. The scariest thing is actually the lighting and camera angle at the school dance (at which the iconic pig blood scene occurs). It captures school in a fairly exaggerated but familiar way. There's only one murder and it's not like a rampage - it's rather justice that no one else seems to be able or willing to deliver. I didn't even really remember the Jesus voodoo doll thingy from the first time around, but it was featured prominently in the doll and the abusive mother's death. I guess that's why I liked the movie, the most vulnerable person was sort of protected instead of picked off and tortured more like in a slasher movie. Well, except for the fact that she died. So, again, not sure it's particularly feminist, but it's got more going on than your average slasher/thriller.

A few other things worth noting that critics have brought up is the mother being the source of the harmful patriarchal religious abuse, so it's kind insult to injury like women are inflicting this on themselves; men are answering for nothing. And tied to that, treating menstruation as a shameful thing - and again the mother didn't educate her because of enforcing the extreme patriarchal religious view of women as sinful, dirty beings. It's hard to say for sure, but worth discussing.

Movie Nite: Teenagers From Outer Space

October Movie Nite

Teenagers From Outer Space

Really 50s. Ridiculous. An alien named Derek lands on Earth and wants to stay. It's complicated! - his dad's the supreme leader of his planet where they don't have families so they can't just fry him on the spot for desertion of his space duties He moves in with a teenage (I'm assuming) girl and her grandfather. The name was really funny, I don't know why. Because they're supposed to be named Mork? After he reached town, it was all Donna Reed or Father Knows Best - for a little bit.

But the killer alien - I don't remember his name - kills with such impunity and coldness and sterility, it feels very much like a comment on the fear and war and the new bomb technology. Maybe a fear of science as a result? It gets more points than a slasher movie for that bit.


This is one of the parts of substance:

Captain: Morrow! Go below and bring up the young gargon specimen. Now the decision depends on its reactions.Derek: Wait, Captain. I have found evidence of intelligent beings on this planet!
Thor: Of what concern of foreign beings?
Derek: Of none to you, Thor! Just as you were so unconcerned when you destroyed this small creature, so bravely!
Thor: It was no more than an insect.
Derek: But it had life. And that life you had to take to satisfy your endless hunger for killing.


The romance is as unimpressive and sexless as the 50s. She has two boyfriends and nothing really happens. Maybe we can excuse her because they're trying to stop Derek's alien friend from zapping everyone's meat off their skeletons.

It's interesting that the reporter boyfriend isn't jealous - maybe some progressive thought there? Or maybe just the real life relationship between the two guys snuck into the fiction.

 

The writer/producer was in the film as the reporter/boyfriend of the girl Derek was in love with and was actually the boyfriend of the man who played Derek. Fun background info.

This next exchange was kind of cheesy, but maybe tries to say in words what they should've shown - how love feels and that you can love those who seem different by your culture's standards because we're all the same - as in the Twilight Zone's People Are the Same All Over and Third From the Sun.

Derek: Betty, when you learn where I'm from, well... you will not understand but, I hope it will not make any difference between us because...Betty Morgan: I don't care where your from. I don't understand all this, but somehow I feel that I've always known you. That we've never been apart!

Another kind of irrelevant but fun fact:The grandfather, Harvey Dunn, had missing fingers and in real life made cards to explain. 

The story of my finger cut off July 18, 1908: "Caught in a cogwheel of a printing press at the Press and Dakotan office, Yankton, S. D., while working around the press. Attending physician Dr. Moorehouse. I did not sue for damages. I can write just as well now, if not better, than before the accident. The stub of the finger has the tendency to melt in summer and freeze in winter. I swear this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge." Sincerely yours, Harvey B. Dunn.

Movie Nite: Plan 9 From Outer Space

We were going to watch one horror movie every night in October, but I think we're averaging every other. 

Plan 9 From Outer Space

The UFOs were as bad as promised.

And Vampira!!!

I kinda fell asleep a little. 

And this is pretty bad... because only detectives can makes very basic inferences:

LT. HARPER Well don't forget Mrs. Trent claims to have seen them too. She didn't have anything on her breath. 
LARRY She was hysterical. 
LT. HARPER Well true, she was frightened, and in a state of shock. But, don't forget that torn nightgown and the scratched feet.
LARRY Yeah I hadn't thought of that. I guess that's why you're a detective lieutenant and I'm still a uniformed cop.

But there are a few interesting things! -- besides the legendary badness of the film. The aliens want to destroy earth people because we made terrible weapons - probably the big bomb scare theme - and they want to destroy us before we destroy them. Compared to the slasher films, I appreciate the noble goal here. In fiction writing, they always say to show, don't just tell, so possibly the guy could've taken a few classes before launching this, but I like the idea.

In another part, the alien mentions God and the human is shocked. In a way, it's a comment on how people from other cultures assume they're different, but they have more in common than they think. I like that theme generally, like several in the old Twilight Zone series.

The major funder was a Baptist preacher and converted a lot of the cast, as I learned in the Vampira book I read recently. Tor Johnson, while being baptized with most of the crew, pretended to drown. Maybe they didn't take the conversion all that seriously? Would've been funny either way. 


The book in question:

Vampira: Dark Goddess of Horror - my notes on Goodreads:
There isn't a huge cache of info on Vampira it seems. Even so, Poole manages a good bio as well as description of where she fit in the cultural changes and how she may have influenced.

What stood out to me was that she was a strong figure who instead of doing the submissive pin up routine, looked at the audience and embodied a women's right to pleasure - and pain if she wants - just by a scream.

She seems to have had lots of bad luck where others got breaks, made a few no so great choices (the lawsuit, for one), and was a little too strong for her era. Like the James Dean stunts. I feel like that would have been fine for today, but it kind of soured people on her at the time.

She's kind of an underdog or forgotten legend. She was pretty revolutionary - or ahead of her time in some ways. There was a bit about how she wanted to choose the next Vampira. She wanted a black or Latina woman, but the network said no to avoid "controversy."

She was under contract four a role in a work by William Faulkner. She was in the Village in the 40s, though her words are forgotten rather than celebrated like her male cohorts, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs. Ackerman, it's said, borrowed from her without attribution. It's amazing that she had so much influence and so little reward.

Quote from the beginning: "Here, the marginalized learn the importance of performance for survival. They understand themselves as different from the dominant power structure and know a direct challenge rarely ends well. So they role-play and subvert, often through the medium of anarchic humor."

transgender people and athletics

transgender people and athletics and the ADF scare tactics

---

I think I'll try and put most of my thoughts here. I'm feeling hermit-y again. Facebook is increasingly not a place I want to microblog or do much else besides connect in groups or post funny crochet things. 

I get that white guys think communicating with (read: shouting down/mansplaining) people with differing views is open minded, but I spend my life swimming upstream and being uncomfortable and need the respite of groups with similar interests who don't get offended by equality.

---
I saw this link below come up on my timeline - and just to warn you - it's going to be biased and hateful because that's the Alliance Defending Freedom's brand - so I looked for more info and interestingly, the targeted individuals are black. (See the Boston.com link here) Hmmm.

A few links on that bit:

-- https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2810857-andraya-yearwood-knows-she-has-the-right-to-compete.amp.html

-- https://rewire.news/article/2019/04/05/the-crisis-of-violence-against-transgender-people-is-not-a-myth/

-- https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community

---

In quotes is the FB post and link that popped up on my feed this morning.

"I'm not posting this to get into the whole gender issue (if you comment on that, try to argue about that, I will remove it. Take that to your own wall). I'm posting this because these young ladies, and others like them, are being robbed of what they have worked so hard to earn."
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/09/09/make-your-voice-heard-men-don-t-belong-in-women-s-sports

---

The poster only wanted to talk about the sports - all transgender discussion would be deleted, but I don't understand that since the crux is fearmongering on the right and complete lack of knowledge of that entire point of view, probably intentionally. So discussion of transgender issues would be exactly what's needed. 

The link is directly encouraging hate and discrimination, so discouraging discussion is asking us to accept the indoctrination and propaganda without talking about it while posting on a public discussion oriented platform. Though I get not wanting a bunch of arguing on your own page.

Here was my polite appeal to the religious crowd before I deleted it:
I would just encourage people to find info outside of this organization, which very definitely is pushing discrimination if you look at the action items (and its activism in general). There's already a court case. This will get sorted out. It needs no action. 

This was a thoughtful Twitter thread (indy link below) more based on evidence about trans athletes.... (#7 kind of explains what this organization is doing)...

The way I learn and connect with things is through books, so maybe read books by trans authors? I would just urge a bit of understanding or curiosity even though it makes us uncomfortable theologically before acting like this org here.

https://www.indy100.com/article/trans-athletes-lgbt-twitter-thread-brynn-tannehill-8808621

---
I wonder if this issue and "concern for fairness" can be the gateway into thinking about how we might be too competitive or how sports shouldn't matter that much or how we should focus on education more actually.
---

Further searching and information: 

Interesting find here. A documentary at the Tribecca Film Festival featuring one of the girls from Connecticut... Could be a source of the backlash. I don't know if I'm interested in what came first. I just don't think we should discriminate and be obsessed with people's genitals at birth or whatever it is Christians say.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/changing-the-game-trailer-exclusive-tribeca-1203193075/

I haven't read these, but I'd start here maybe- books by non-binary authors:

https://bookriot.com/2018/10/27/trans-non-binary-authors/

Peterson, Pinker, and the Intellectual Dark Web

There are a group of names that keep popping up that people will insist that are more progressive than you think or that need to be heard because they are being silenced. Who can be against free speech; right? In reality, whatever else their main focus is, they are usually spouting some serious strains of Islamophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, hate for immigrants to rival the GOP, or patriarchal gender binary defense to rival the most conservative church. They will talk about free speech and human rights so that you think they might be progressive - until you realize these rights they are talking about are only for them. They are uninterested in yours. Who are they? Generally white guys who think everything is equal so why do these other groups need any more rights? It's infringing on their freedom to call people by the pronouns they ask. They whine about #metoo going "too far." They don't see color. Women owe them sex and ant prove capitalism is natural. They love to opine about the outrage culture of the left and identity politics.

This is a fun little satire.

New Jordan Peterson book asserts all dogs are boys and all cats are girls

I fell into the intellectual dark web awhile back in explaining why Jordan Peterson is not as great as Joe Rogan fans insist. At times I have emphasized the fact that he spawned men's rights activist groups of entitled male "victims" of feminism. Other times, I have cited how he is, some argue, hateful toward trans people and thinks feminists are evil. Men have trouble connecting to these themes apparently.

 On one hand, he uses science like a social Darwinist, which is to say wrong - he doesn't know anything.

 


On the other hand, lots of Big Thinkers and New Atheists or whatever we're calling them overlap with this problematic bunch for some benevolent (or not so benevolent) sexism, racism, etc. Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker come to mind. They are known for being critics of religion and don't always say objectionable things. They come across as reasonable and people you should be allies with in the protection of separation of church and state. But some will cite scientific research or statistics with the criticism that seems to support racist or Islamophobic stereotypes, but them will warn against such - as though to say "I'm not racist, but..." and then go on to say something very racist. Racists and Islamophobes love these guys. And they have the added benefit of these guys being respected neuroscientists and thinkers rather than a Milo Yiannopoulos type spouting hateful tropes. Not everyone who enjoys these skeptics or religion critics is racist or sexist, but they often can't see the problem with them due to their privilege.


In "Why Do People Love to Hate Steven Pinker," you can see a little of the disconnect in this description of Quillette in which I agree with the unnamed latter critic that Quillette is a center for white male grievance:

"He’s also been a supporter of and contributor to Quillette, the online house journal for the Intellectual Dark Web, the loose collection of academics and writers who see themselves as forging a centrist path in a rigidly ideological culture. Quillette is either “unique and indispensable,” as Pinker puts it, or a “center for white male grievance,” as one critic described it. The Quillette ethos, to the degree that there is one, tracks closely with Pinker’s thinking. "

In Down Girl by Kate Manne, she shows how Steven Pinker indirectly used someone else's sexist argument to deny that the Isla Vista killings were caused by misogyny. He might be in favor of progress, but that doesn't mean he's not also sexist or unable to see the problem (and denying one exists!) owing to his privilege.

"Again" because Pinker used Heather Mac Donald to do his anti-feminist dirty work for him in the immediate aftermath of the Isla Vista killings. pic.twitter.com/reMgaJyQxa

— Kate Manne (@kate_manne) March 12, 2018

The AV Club has an interesting take on the infamous Bari Weiss NYT article on the subject:
The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it

"The ridiculousness of the article is pretty clear. It takes the arguments of its subjects at face value, legitimizes the unironic use of “Intellectual Dark Web,” and generally reads as an apologia for those who, a few short years ago, were rightfully ignored for propagating bad arguments meant to give audiences reassurance that their worst instincts are, in fact, good to have. "

Finally Watched - Won't You Be My Neighbor

Won't You Be My Neighbor?
Trailer

I've been putting it off watching this Mr. Rogers documentary for a year because I knew how I'd feel, and I didn't want to do that yet - you know, deal with the melancholy - like he was the last good person and he's dead... I'm going to be processing this for another year. 

Some notes.

That first week of the show was about WAR! How did they do that? King Friday wanted to build a wall, Henrietta Pussycat was scared of the shooting, and the resolution was to send messages of peace by balloon to the king. Wow. An anti-war message promoting peace and possibly protest! I feel like people would say that's too political for kids – and even some adults – today. You'd be accused of having an agenda, of being divisive, pushing that liberal political message. Why can't we get along and rise above politics would be the message today. But the fact that that was the first week was awesome. He kept that up, speaking to children's deepest fears and hence some adults' as well. 

How he didn't like TV really is great. He saw the pies in the face and wanted to use the medium differently. That was kind of a big idea. The images in the film were of commercials with kids with toy guns and slapstick comedy with people doing mean things.

Of course his mother's quote of looking for the helpers is in there. We bring it out in times of disaster. I look for the helpers. The kind people who do things because they too see the humanity in others and want to put as much good out into the world as possible. Those are my people, but there are so few... 

What he says about silence – that it's the greatest gift. It's what I feel or AM. This one was profound to me and hit hard. I'm naturally this way, but it's always made me feel different and a bit defective. (See later when Daniel Tiger worries he's a mistake...) I've always been teased for that, but I suppose it was harder for him being a man and going up against those toxic masculinity/ male entitlement type expectations. Clemmons explains how he modeled a different way to be a man. That was groundbreaking stuff -- him just being himself. Clemmons debunks the wild speculations that Rogers was gay. They had nothing to compare him to, so they made up tattoos and navy seal stories, etc. That was a great moment as well since it's something that's still lacking in our culture despite strides we've made in equality.

I love his sincerity and the way he connects with each individual and lets them know he's happy to be spending this moment with them and he wouldn't have it any other way. When he says he's glad to meet someone, it's not a formality, he means it. Yo-Yo Ma was funny in describing that. He was three inches away from his face and it freaked him out. The look on his face as he recalled that was priceless.

I always want to be that open as he was and tell people that I appreciate the time I spend with them because I do. There are times in my life I've been able to tell people what they mean to me – usually when someone dies or when I've felt grateful - wedding and baby showers when so many people are so incredibly supportive and helpful you feel like you can't possibly deserve it. A few other random times. But I feel like I don't want to unnerve people by saying it out of the blue. Certain times feel more acceptable for me to express that so they won't think I'm terminally ill or contemplating suicide or something. 

He somehow took the best things from Christianity and Buddhism and acted it out – the love and acceptance and being in the moment, not the authoritarian sexism. Though there was an issue with Clemmons going to a gay bar and Rogers having talk with him that he couldn't do that. I wished he was better on that. They didn't go into that so deeply. It seemed that he came around to personal acceptance of his friend, but who knows whether the gay bar incident was more about the show and how he knew that the public wouldn't accept it or what. Maybe he was protecting his friend? Maybe just the show? 

Daniel tiger saying he thought he was a mistake... That was heart wrenching because I think all of us with an introverted tendency tend to think this at some point – or all points in life about various things about us. The duet is amazing. It's what you wish someone would've told you instead of eventually sorting that out on your own. I sort of told my daughter this on a make up discussion, that I like her just the way she is. I wanted to make sure she knew that it's okay to dress up and have fun with make up, but it's her I love for being her. I hope I said it right.

A big takeaway is when he told why he made the ending song, how he thought every child needed to hear that, that they were loved just the way they are. That's important. I feel like I didn't get that enough.

The film covered a bit of the backlash to Mr. Rogers. I can't believe I said that – backlash. To Mr. Rogers. Fox News blamed him for the state of America and the youth who feel entitled or didn't earn their specialness. Westboro Baptist Church picketed his funeral. There's so much wrong with this Fox News conservative view. He's talking about a human's inherent worth and it being important to know that for oneself and also (or in order to) see it in others. He's not talking about unearned expertise or some former Muslim making the rounds denouncing Islam not because of his or her scholarship but because he or she fit your narrative of hate and vengeance.

I grew up with that backlash to being too loving, sadly. Spare the rod and spoil the child! I'm not going to argue about disciplinary methods here. That's another conversation. Parents need to figure that out. That's only one aspect of this. I heard this in CHURCH. People would say from time to time that other denominations focused too much on the love of God like it was some mushy gushy very bad thing. They would say preachers are talking too much about God's love and not enough about church discipline. “When I was a kid, we heard fire and brimstone and we behaved! Church-goers today are just like the children of parents who don't want to hurt their child's self-esteem by correcting him.” They scoffed at self-esteem and love as weak (unless it was tough love in which they were exacting harsh penalties while saying love). But I have to say I died just a little inside whenever I heard it said we don't need to hear about the love of God so much or that it is overemphasized at the expense of harder truths. Every cell in my body was saying NO! But we NEED love! Don't take it away! I need to hear it. I don't experience love in “not even to eat with such a one.” I need you to look me in the eyes and tell me your love is unconditional. I need you to show me you value my inherent humanity (and I, yours). Tough love isn't love. Hating the sin, but loving the sinner isn't love. Of course I only felt those things. I could never ever say them out loud.

One thing that's odd about him was that he was so kind and well adjusted despite being a rich kid and then on to fame. Even with that, I feel he's a kindred quiet spirit I feel a affinity with. Maybe the bullying and music and introspection helped give him that desire to put good into the world as the ultimate goal with no ulterior narcissistic motive. I always say as a shorthand for my philosophy – do the most good for the most people. I feel like despite the Christianity and Republicanism, he thought like that. If I had met him though, I may have feared his Christianity. Though i guess when he was alive, I was one, so maybe I'd have admired the way he took the good from it and left the poison.

At the end of the film, they speculate about what Rogers would say about Trump. I think he'd focus on the problems not from a broad political or philosophical point of view, but he'd focus on how that affected kids like he always did. He wouldn't tell about school shootings, but address the fear they could have worrying about what if that happens to them. And in the same way, those immigrant kids who are scared of being deported or separated from their parents – that's where he'd start. I wonder if he'd have the same compassion for Muslim kids though. He didn't want Clemmons to come out as gay, but was at least good on race with that segment making the point of sharing the pool together. It's hard to say.

************************

One more thing on the Challenger and memory...

I'll put this at the end because I don't associate it with Mr. Rogers, but it was in the film and made me think about that day and how I don't know if what I'm remembering is true to the facts of where I was or what I saw.

Footage of the Challenger exploding was so strange. I saw it and had a very immediate reaction. Gut wrenching. Very sad. I wonder if my memory of watching this in school is real or something I made from news coverage. I swear I remember all the classes at my Christian school gathering around the few TVs, though. There was cheering and excitement- she was a teacher going up, you could feel the teachers' connection. And it lifted off, but then everything turned to just confusion and sadness so completely abruptly. Such a complete shift, opposite emotions. It was jarring even though I didn't know what a space launch was supposed to look like or even really what death meant most likely. I don't know what I knew. But I knew the thing that was keeping them safe wasn't doing that anymore and they couldn't breathe all the way up there. Did I know that even? Then I swear a little kid said “see the pretty colors” and it made me really sad both because they didn't know people were hurt and because they'd find out sometime. You want to help, but you know telling them the truth isn't going to "help" really. That was another kick in the gut. But I wonder how much of that memory is news footage later and how much is really mine. I heard Bart Ehrman speak on memory once and now I don't know what I know. Haha.

If you want to cry again,

read the part about when Diane Rehm asks Mr. Rogers 

what he does when he's sad... It's heartbreaking.

Here's the Congressional hearing where Mr. Rogers secures funding for PBS.

ACTION - Born Alive Bills - NCGA S359

I wrote our governor today about the born alive bill. I did use two paragraphs from a NARAL post, but I added the first and last paragraphs.

So this is one of those ALEC copy/paste things - frequently referred to as the "born alive bill".

See here and here for how they keep popping up, why we don't need them, and how they push an anti-choice agenda through seemingly innocuous means.

Online: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper

Please veto these extreme anti-woman, anti-abortion bills. This is a religious/healthcare/moral issue for pregnant individuals. The simple fact is this is a human rights issue. By denying women abortion as healthcare, lawmakers assume women lack the capacity to make health and moral decisions for themselves. What's next? Taking away our bank accounts or forcing our husbands to co-sign loans?

S359 (H602 in the house) is an extreme anti-abortion bill written by politicians, not doctors, that has no basis in medicine or science. The sole purpose of this bill is to intimidate patients and criminalize doctors and healthcare practitioners.

It's yet another effort by the anti-abortion majority to push extreme and inflammatory rhetoric in order to achieve their ultimate goal: banning abortion altogether.

Please veto all anti-abortion legislation and don't let the religious right take away our right to healthcare, autonomy, privacy, and religion.

***********************

*PACK THE GALLERY--#StopS359!*  MONDAY, APRIL 15th, 2pm

North Carolina General Assembly
16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh

Bring all your friends and come pack the NCGA Senate gallery Monday, 4/15, at 2pm.  The Senate will be voting on the extreme anti-abortion bill S359--Come fight for reproductive rights and abortion access and to #Stop359!

The North Carolina General Assembly is again trying to restrict abortion access and use our bodies for political stunts. S359 (H602 in the house) is an extreme anti-abortion bill written by politicians, not doctors, that has no basis in medicine or science.  The sole purpose of this bill is to intimidate patients and criminalize doctors and healthcare practitioners.

It's yet another effort by the anti-abortion majority to push extreme and inflammatory rhetoric in order to achieve their ultimate goal: banning abortion altogether.

Help us pack the Senate gallery of the NCGA

Please also keep calling and emailing your members of the NCGA and tell them to vote against S359 and its companion bill H602! Find your NC House and NC Senate members here: https://www.ncleg.gov/RnR/Representation

And, keep contacting Governor Cooper to tell him to veto S359, to veto H602, and to veto all other anti-abortion bills that reach his desk.
Phone: (919) 814-2000
Online: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper

"Something," Ilhan Omar, and Islamophobia

Why is the GOP hating women of color today?

Well, here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/pure-racist-act-ny-post-slammed-using-attack-rep-omar-over-speech-islamophobia/

 So several things here. People are mad because she didn't call 9/11 murder, she called it "something." And why she might have done that - the answer to this is absolutely illustrated in the Post's reaction and in people's reaction below. See the quote a few paragraphs down.

She may have said that because she was talking in that moment that was picked out and over-analyzed about the resulting Islamophobia and the blanket assumption after 9/11 that all Muslims and more widely all brown people are terrorists and dealt (and it remains) with everything from death threats and discrimination to actual physical harm.

So proving her point, the NY Post puts the signature picture of the burning towers and responds to the Congresswoman's words with all the power of its shoddy journalism on the front page with a giant headline, guaranteed to whip up the uninformed hatemongers into a frenzy. Aaand this happens...

Quote:

"Hundreds of people protested Omar outside the banquet, with chants that included “Burn the Koran,” “Ilhan Omar go to hell,” and “Shame on you terrorists.”

She used her speech to talk about Islamophobia, and she did not mince words about President Trump, saying she believed that he played a role in fueling “hate against Muslims.” "

So you see the Islamophobia she was referring to is alive and well.

When someone says 9/11 is murder, it puts the attention on the perpetrators, which was done after the tragedy to generate hate widely for brown people and Muslims and flag waving vengeance and a desire to kill in another ill-conceived invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter having nothing to do with it. Do we call those murders?? There were far more victims of 9/11 than those who died in the towers and she was differentiating between them.

Note that these people aren't criticizing her words, they are saying that she is a terrorist which was the very point she was making about the atmosphere after 9/11 where government policy and GOP/Bush fearmongering had dangerous effects then and continues to now through GOP/Trump.

You can question her phrasing, her tone, or her clothes - women deal with this EVERY SINGLE DAY with sexism and women of color more so than me through racism - but she is making a valid point that we need to pay attention to.

This is the NY Post's front page news:

And here you have another example of the NY Post's opportunistic bottom feeding exploitation of fear, racism, and stereotypes. Sub par journalism would be one thing. Inciting hatred is far worse.

Size Matters, But Training Helps!

Most of my jiu-jitsu training partners outweigh me by at least a hundred pounds. Sometimes more. I’m a 5’0” 41-year-old bookish introvert. This sport is hard. I get mat burns and sore fingers and bruises. Am I doing well? Do I look like a purple belt? Everyone’s bigger and stronger. Why keep coming back?


A lot of folks seem to rely on quite a bit of strength at first if they happen to be built that way. I wasn’t born that lucky or with a particular interest in spending hours on the machines in a gym next to guys flexing for themselves in mirrors. Why stick around if you’re not winning?

In working with bigger folks, I have had to be mostly technical and that can be demoralizing, especially as a beginner without many tools in the toolbox. Even later I think – I’m a purple belt after all, I should be somewhat good at this. This sweep should work! It’s hard and I spend a lot of time figuring out how to escape – which is to say on the bottom sucking stale, sweaty air, ineffectually shrimping, being the proverbial nail instead of the hammer, as the Gracie quote goes. I don’t have it all figured out now, but I’m better than I was when I started! That’s a win for me.

There are some advantages to being small like speed and fitting into spaces people don’t realize they’re leaving, but if all my weight isn’t in the two or three points I’m using for the technique, it’s probably not going to happen. Even when I’m doing it perfectly, their strength gets the better of me many times. Size matters. That’s just a fact. That doesn’t have to ruin the fun though! Is crushing everyone you meet what you consider winning? Is that the goal of your training?

Not all competition and vigorous training is bad. I do kind of dread the type of competition when you first get your purple belt or a new guy thinks “oh, this tiny lady should be an easy submission.” But when you find good people who respect each other and watch out for one another, a little competition can be good. There is a way to push each other, up the pace, but still in a playful controlled way. You both understand that your life doesn’t depend on “winning” this particular session. If your guard gets passed or you get swept, it’s not the end of your career. It means a little more work maybe. Now you have to pass guard again. But it certainly doesn’t reflect poorly on who you are as a person. It’s not a character flaw. If you’re on the mat, you’re learning and getting better. If you’re doing the work, you’re winning.

Though I enjoy friendly competition, I’m also putting my life in your hands as a smaller person. We smaller folks have to stay vigilant about a partner muscling through techniques or whether or not to invert or turtle if a heavier person might do something dangerous. Even if not explicitly stated each time, we all – no matter our size – still trust each other with our joints and necks. Training partners are there to make each other better and take care of each other. You’re not there to practice “street techniques” or mark off “wins” in your jiu-jitsu notebook. At least I hope not – not in an open mat and especially not during a regular class. There’s a high degree of trust involved that we don’t necessarily think about on a day to day basis. But if we’re all – regardless of size – in it for cooperative, respectful competition rather than skull crunching, spine crushing, knee wrenching wins we’ll all last longer, learn more and have more fun doing it.

I wrote this for:
https://geoffbalmebjj.com/2019/03/31/size-matters-but-training-helps/

Toxic Masculinity and Libertarianism

I've been increasingly interested in the links between white supremacy and domestic violence since the mass shootings have been linked to these and toxic masculinity is in the news. There are links and associations amongst those things throughout society as we've seen in Gamergate, guests on sports radio shows and their massive popularity, and even some presidential candidates' problematic associations. In trying to find a driving force, left and right didn't seem all that helpful/conclusive, but libertarianism seemed a possible likely connection with the emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of altruism/equality/liberty for ALL. -- and it says MRA are two sides of a coin, not that if you're one, you have to be the other (but you could be). And, yes, there are different strains of libertarianism, so don't sweat it if you don't have MRA tendencies!

This article is from 2015 and so maybe unacceptable to many, but I wondered if anything like this had been written...and it turns out it had. There are three good quotes below, presented for your introspection.

Why Libertarians and MRAs Sound the Same When They Talk About Feminism

On MRA:

"For those of you who are blissfully unaware, men's rights activists are basically weaponized douchebags. They tell us that feminism has gone too far and men are now second-class citizens."

On privilege bolstering MRA or libertarianism:

"Obviously, the idea that we all go through life as isolated individuals and that group identities (race, class, gender, sexuality, etc) don't define us in any meaningful way could only seem plausible to a white man of at least moderate financial means—or anyone bound up in the aspirational fantasies of whiteness, masculinity, and economic elitism. Whiteness, and especially straight male whiteness, is treated as the de facto standard from which others deviate, to such an extent that a straight white (cis, able-bodied) man can completely forget his experience is not universal. From within that perspective, it's easy to see freedom as consisting in, and only in, being left alone to do whatever you want with your money."

And ding ding ding - we have a winner!-->👇

"Both libertarians and MRAs are dedicated to missing this point. They speak in the language of individual rights and equality because by reducing all the complexity of the social world down to a set of isolated units, they can pretend that everyone's privileges and disadvantages are rightfully earned."

Banning Abortion in the Case of Down Syndrome

Banning Abortion in the Case of Down Syndrome

Arkansas Senate approves bill banning Down's syndrome abortions

Arkansas ‘Down Syndrome Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act’ (SB 2)


As it impinges on the right to an abortion I don't think anything should - if you are pregnant and don't want to be, you should have the right to decide - but I don't think Down Syndrome is a good reason for it if you want kids in the first place. 

I don't think one *should* abort for sex selection or Down Syndrome or anything along those lines. But that's a different question than a legal ban. Bans get into the state requiring you to give a reason and or proof and that's extremely problematic for privacy in medical care and maintaining a right to abortion in general. Obviously there's a movement to ban abortions of which this ban is likely a part, not just a disingenuous slippery slope argument. It's got to remain an opinion and up for discussion rather than law if we want to keep the right to choose at all.

What about Iceland? They've got such a low number of Down Syndrome births.

As long as there is choice in the matter - which is a necessary right of bodily autonomy - it won't be eradicated, as headlines frequently announce. I don't even like using that word, eradicated, but it drives home a certain point about our problem with ableism in this country and the extent to which Down Sydrome isn't really a disease that you can, in good conscience, speak about in such a way. You aren't going to "eradicate" it with any sort of preventative measure at this point - those things aren't known as far as I know. It's not polio. Eliminating a single disease is good and there are vaccines that accomplish that by preventing the spread of them and keep people from catching it. You don't "catch" Down Syndrome though.

The facts are, that Down Syndrome isn't a disease and the eugenics aspect is hard for me to deal with. Eliminating a segment of the population with traits some simply find undesirable is troubling, to say the least. With Downs, sure the are health issues, but there are a host of other traits that make them much needed members of society. We would be less without them. I wonder what the line would be if we could predict blindness or other things from the womb. Who would be next? Maybe in Iceland and the Netherlands they are in general a more cooperative or collective society and services wouldn't diminish despite a lower incidence and there wouldn't be more stigma/discrimination, but I suspect that situation here would be a disaster.

It might seem like a positive, this near eradication in Iceland, but talk of eradication is hard to reconcile (or frankly hear anyone discuss) with knowing Down's people and what they've added to my life. It's not like polio, where there's a vaccine and you're eradicating a disease instead of a set of traits and a particular personality. We would be less without them. 

I hope the thinking doesn't change among our population such that it goes the way of Iceland - I wonder if it comes with a greater intolerance of all disability - but equally I hope abortion is never banned again.

---

If you want to read something by someone who said it better, you can read this by a woman who has experience:

The "Down Syndrome Abortion Ban" Uncovers A Difficult Truth About Pro-Choice Politics & Disability

A couple of quotes from the article, things to think about:

I do not believe my daughter's mutations are an accident. I do not believe they are a gift. I believe they are part of who she is. And I know that I will always feel grateful and honored to be Esmé’s mother, just as she is.

Genetic mutations, genetic difference, is what has allowed us to become more resilient as a species. It is at the root of how we grow and adapt.

Instead, what we need, and what individuals like Esmé require of us, is a turn toward compassion, selflessness, joy, and determination in the face of struggle.

---

From the struggle in Ireland where people with Down Syndrome were used as political pawns by anti-choicers.

STOP USING DOWN SYNDROME AS ANTI-CHOICE PROPAGANDA


Quote from article:

Writing in the Irish online publication The Journal, Darach Ó Séaghdha, the father of a toddler with Down syndrome, takes issue with the "Love Both" flyer. He's tired of seeing faces of children with Down syndrome in anti-abortion propaganda and almost nowhere else. "She's more likely to see a girl like her in such propaganda than she is to see a girl like her in a TV show or even working in a shop," he writes. Meanwhile, he’d like to see these groups put similar efforts into expanding postnatal services.