Why #iCan't with Macklemore Anymore
Macklemore and his fake social activism is more tiresome than the people defending him as "the best hip-hop anything, ever… even though we've never actually listened to hip-hop." But the more his old tweets surface, the more sketchy and inconsistent his claims of dependency and recovery become, the more he tries to claim this loving relationship with Kendrick Lamar, and the less Mary Lambert gets acknowledged for her major contribution to his success, the harder it gets for me to stick with my original thoughts of "I LOVE this guy! I just think there are certainly better hip-hop artists who are actually hip-hop, rather than hip-pop."
I mean, these 2009 tweets of his are real and verified [not that anyone was trying to pretend to be Macklemore in 2009 anyway]:
His tales of dependency and recovery make no sense. He always claims alcohol dependency but the drugs he claims change every time he gives an interview. It started with OxyContin dependency, and now his claim is weed and sizzurup (Google it). But he's also never been to an NA meeting and claims he's too busy to do AA consistently. I get that not all sober people do AA or NA, but if you know any recovered addicts, you know they aren't dealing with his (alleged) drug issues at AA meetings. Also, he's going to AA when it's convenient for him to bring along a Rolling Stones reporter; but he's clearly busier than Ben Affleck (who regularly attends meetings), even though no one knew who the heck Macklemore was back in 2008, which is the time he "more or less" got sober. Which is another thing. Tell me one recovered addict (other than Macklemore) who can't tell you the day s/he had his/her last drink/hit, let alone year. Seriously, he doesn't know the year?? I mean, maybe he was soberish and slipped or has never fully and truly done a recovery program but is still sober. That's still great. But why do you feel the need to bring an interviewer along when you actually decide to go to a meeting??? This self-promotion crap is so old... so very tired.
People are starting to catch on to this guy. These old tweets have found new life today. Even the women at Jezebel (who love him so very much) are starting to talk about it (http://groupthink.jezebel.com/presented-without-comment-1509651073).
Look Macklemore defenders, it isn't that we can't accept a white rapper. We accept Eminem just fine. Snow too. Bestie Boys, hell yes! It isn't that we can't accept rappers who don't sing about bling-bling, bitches,and hoes either. The list of rappers who defy that stereotype is actually really long. Anyone who actually listens to hip-hop could rattle off 10 socially conscious hip-hop artists in 10 seconds. People who think rap is only about "bitches and hoes" and guns and bling clearly know nothing about rap—not its roots and not its present. The problem with Macklemore isn't his whiteness and it isn't his (alleged) consciousness; it's his personal narrative and his placement.
The man can flow. He would've been famous even if he acknowledged his past dickishness and didn't try to fabricate this haggard backstory. But now, here's where the famous backlash begins. If Macklemore befalls the same fate as Vanilla Ice, it won't be the "white rapper" curse; it'll be the "big liar" curse. Lying didn't work for Milli Vanilli, and it shouldn't work for him either.
Also, I'm sorry, but Macklemore isn't everything in rap. He can't even get played on most hip-hop channels, but he owns every pop station. And, again, don't give me that "it's because he's white" shit, because Eminem has an entire channel on Sirius/XM (Shade 45)
It's a damn shame Macklemore turned out to be such a putz, because I really like some of his music.
Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Is...
He's... He's...
You know what? Fuck it! That bigot isn't even worth my time, nor is anyone who is so ignorant and intolerant as to call his level of bullshit bigotry "religious freedom" deserving of support.
Yet Another Moral Outrage
I had some other things planned for today's post... some lighter, fluffier, hopefully little-bit-funny things... then I found out about Judge G. Todd Baugh in Montana, and all those plans went out the window.
On Monday, Judge Baugh sentenced a pedophile... a then-49-year old teacher who two years ago raped his 14-year old student... who from the pressures brought on her by both the "relationship" and the trial killed herself in January of this year... to a month. I guess, to be more accurate, I should say that he sentenced this stain on humanity to 15 years, but then decided to give him time served for the one day the d-bag actually spent in jail and reduced the entirety of the sentence to 31 days. I'm not making this up.
What could have possibly made the judge believe that 31 days is a sufficient punishment for a teacher betraying the trust of a young girl in his care, grooming her to be a sexual partner, violating her, and then dragging this thing out until she could no longer take the emotional pressure [the sentencing was prolonged while this jerkwad underwent a three-year treatment program... which it turns out he wasn't really attending, and during that time he was supposed to be in treatment, he continued to—in violation of the terms of the program—have contact with minors and entered into a sexual relationship, resulting in him eventually getting kicked out of the program]? Well, because the child was much "older than her chronological age" and was "as much in control of the situation" as her 49-year old rapist-teacher with respect to the relationship. 'Scuse me??? She was a child. And this child was in this man's care. He was supposed to be someone she could trust. And he violated her. She was not in control. She was 14. I don't care how sexually experienced she was or was not or how much makeup she wore, he was still the adult here, he was still in a position of power, and he knew he shouldn't be touching a 14-year old girl. Period.
The "judge" was also persuaded by the rapist's pleas for leniency, because he was going to be "branded as a sex offender" for the rest of his life and has had his life ruined by the "scarlet letter of the Internet." No, buddy, your life was ruined because you raped a child. You had a choice to make here which would have prevented you from being "branded as a sex offender" and having your life ruined—that choice was to not rape a child. But you did, and under normal circumstances, with a normal judge, you should have been required to pay the consequences.
All of this slut-shaming of the victim while feeling sorry for the perpetrator eerily reminded me of CNN's coverage of the Steubenville rapists, wherein Candy Crowley, Poppy Harlow, and others harped on and on about how the guilty verdict and maximum fine would affect the poor rapists and showed not one minute of concern for the girl the "two young men" had raped. Poppy was practically on the verge of tears talking about how it was "incredibly difficult" to watch "as these two young men—who had such promising futures, star football players and very good students—literally watched as they believed their life [sic] fell apart." Seriously. She said that. And it went on and on. Contributor Paul Callan weighed in on what such a verdict meant for these 16-year olds who were crying in court and how they would be punished for the rest of their lives: "There's always that moment of just... Lives are destroyed. But in terms of what happens now, the most severe thing with these young men is being labeled as registered sex offenders. That label is now placed on them by Ohio law. That will haunt them for the rest of their lives."
Yes. That happened. That was said. Are you outraged? If you aren't, you should be.
These boys (like this teacher) will be "haunted" by the "label" of sex offender for their entire lives, because they made a conscious decision to become sex offenders. Sure, when each of these three men decided to pursue the act of raping a teenage girl, it never occurred to them that a consequence might some day be that they would be registered sex offenders... but it should have. Honestly, I would hope that the act of having sexual intercourse with someone too drunk, too unconscious, or too young to legally, knowingly, or rationally give consent should be enough of a deterrent to this kind of behavior; but for those fools who are somehow not motivated by morality and a conscience like the rest of us, I would hope that the legal system doing its job would be enough of a deterrent. For those who persist, then I'm happy we have the legal system there as a backup. At least it worked in the case of the Steubenville Rapists [I hope]. But this teacher? Where's his motivation to stop?
"Judge" Baugh said he believed the Teacher-Rapist wasn't a likely repeat offender. He had no basis for this really. I mean, the man couldn't even successfully comply with a three-year treatment program after being caught raping one of his students! So now we're just supposed to trust that he—after being given the lightest of slaps on the wrist—is supposed to prevent himself from diddling with young girls in the future? Not likely. And, I'm sure if someone was motivated to poke around a bit more, they would find that he's poked around with a lot more students than this one.
If you're curious of Judge Baugh has had anything to say since the backlash for his sentencing started, you're in luck. Turns out he totally had something to say on Tuesday:
I think that people have in mind that this was some violent, forcible, horrible rape ... It was horrible enough as it is just given her age, but it wasn't this forcible beat-up rape.
Oh.... I get it! Not one of those "legitimate rapes"? Well, I guess we can't be upset then, can we? Cuz, ya know, it's not like those rapes where you don't get beaten up at knifepoint actually count, right? Enjoy your re-election efforts this year, Braugh. Should be an interesting political season in Billings.
As for the rest of society, those possibly capable of learning, when are we going to learn to stop feeling sorry for the perpetrators and stop blaming the victims? When someone gets carjacked, you never hear, "Well, what did you expect driving around in a nice car like that on the open road where anyone could see you? You're just asking to get it taken from you at gunpoint." When a company is hit by embezzlement, no one argues, "C'mon now! It just had all that money sitting in its bank accounts! What did the company expect an employee would do??" But there are certain types of situations—those usually involving the already powerless (like rape, sexual orientation-based hate crimes, or racial/gender discrimination) where it's perfectly normal to hear the victim getting blamed rather than holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions, even by people who are themselves similarly situated as the victims. We have seen it in Poppy Harlow and Candy Crowley sympathizing with the rapists over the rape victim. We saw it when Don Lemon blamed blacks for racial discrimination perpetrated against them. We hear it when a transgendered person or a gay person who is thought of by (those with issues) as "too flamboyant" is killed or beaten.
Perhaps its because we've let the powerful dictate the treatment of the powerless for so long that the powerless have started to believe the propaganda? I'm not sure. But I do know it's time we put an end to this. Victimization is rarely (if ever) the victim's fault.
Two Things Y'all Apparently Didn't Know About Wentworth Miller
I was (and still am) perplexed. I mean, didn't everyone know he's gay by now? I thought that closet door had long been open and shut behind him. He didn't have some huge coming out cover story on People or anything, but most people don't. He's never tried to lie about his sexual orientation and never had a beard. Heck, I remember having this discussion with some women in my former mommy group four years ago. And that discussion revealed another thing those women apparently didn't know about Wentworth Miller (and I found a lot of people were as in the dark as they were).
So here are two facts that I have known about Wentworth Miller since his Prison Break days (even though I never watched that show; I only admired his beautiful face and body), and which I have wrongly assumed everyone knew:
1. Wentworth Miller is gay.
Here's a picture with his boyfriend (actor Luke MacFarlane) from 2007 described back then in an article as him coming out.
2. Wentworth Miller is black (well, half-black).1
Bam! Minds blown.
Well, unless you were paying attention the past few years, in which case, this is all duuuuuuuuh!
FN 1. Also, FYI, other black/half-black celebrities that no one seems to know (incognegro?) are: Jennifer Beals, Vin Diesel, Rashida Jones, Soledad O'Brien, Slash, Mariah Carey, Pete Wentz, Cash Warren, Carol Channing...
But If Gay People Have Families, What Will You Tell Your Kids?
One (ignorant) argument I always hear against marriage equality or adoption equality is that if gay couples get married and/or have children, the bigots some people don't know how to explain the concept to children. Well,bigots confused people, be confused no more! We addressed that issue in my house tonight with our four year old, and I would like to share with you how it went.
There's a boy in Little Diva's class we will call B. B and Little Diva have known each other since they were 18 months old and went to The Little Gym and then eventually preschool together. When they were in the same class at The Little Gym and at their first school, one of B's mommies was always with him. Same when they had swim class together. Since the kids started their new school last year, B's other mommy (who stopped working when she had twins) has been the one we see all the time. In the three years Little Diva has known B, it has never occurred to her that she used to see one lady all the time and then she started seeing another lady all the time. It didn't even occur to her when she saw them together and heard mention of B's mommies.
Flash-forward to tonight: At dinner, Little Diva is telling us how B's older sister got sick, so his mommy came to pick her up, but he stayed at school. And then she paused for a minute and started marveling at how big B's family was. When trying to count his family members, Little Diva said "Omigosh! He has daddy and his mommy and his older sister and his baby sister and his baby brother! That's, like seven [sic] people in his family!". When she said "his daddy," Pop Culture Dad and I looked at each other, and he gave me a glance that said "you take this one!".
When Little Diva was done with her (erroneous) counting, I first corrected the number and then the family structure. "Honey," I said, "[B] doesn't have a daddy; he has two mommies." So how did Little Diva react to this earth shattering news? "Oh! Okay! So he has two mommies and his older sister and his baby brother and his baby sister and him. Six. That's six people. That's a big family!" Yeah, I'd say she handled it just fine.
So if you're one of thoseassholespeople who thinks that others should be denied the basic and fundamental civil right of marriage and family simply *because you're worried about how in the world we're supposed to explain this kind of thing to our kids, worry no more. Chances are, they'll probably handle the issue better than you apparently have.
*Side bar: If you're one of those people who thinks we should deny others the basic and fundamental civil right of marriage and family (and the thousands of legal benefits granted in this country that come with the status of marriage) simply because your interpretation of your religion forbids it, then might I remind you: (I) of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment and that we don't live on a theocracy [try Iran. I'm sure you'll love it there]; and (II) no one's forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
There's a boy in Little Diva's class we will call B. B and Little Diva have known each other since they were 18 months old and went to The Little Gym and then eventually preschool together. When they were in the same class at The Little Gym and at their first school, one of B's mommies was always with him. Same when they had swim class together. Since the kids started their new school last year, B's other mommy (who stopped working when she had twins) has been the one we see all the time. In the three years Little Diva has known B, it has never occurred to her that she used to see one lady all the time and then she started seeing another lady all the time. It didn't even occur to her when she saw them together and heard mention of B's mommies.
Flash-forward to tonight: At dinner, Little Diva is telling us how B's older sister got sick, so his mommy came to pick her up, but he stayed at school. And then she paused for a minute and started marveling at how big B's family was. When trying to count his family members, Little Diva said "Omigosh! He has daddy and his mommy and his older sister and his baby sister and his baby brother! That's, like seven [sic] people in his family!". When she said "his daddy," Pop Culture Dad and I looked at each other, and he gave me a glance that said "you take this one!".
When Little Diva was done with her (erroneous) counting, I first corrected the number and then the family structure. "Honey," I said, "[B] doesn't have a daddy; he has two mommies." So how did Little Diva react to this earth shattering news? "Oh! Okay! So he has two mommies and his older sister and his baby brother and his baby sister and him. Six. That's six people. That's a big family!" Yeah, I'd say she handled it just fine.
So if you're one of those
*Side bar: If you're one of those people who thinks we should deny others the basic and fundamental civil right of marriage and family (and the thousands of legal benefits granted in this country that come with the status of marriage) simply because your interpretation of your religion forbids it, then might I remind you: (I) of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment and that we don't live on a theocracy [try Iran. I'm sure you'll love it there]; and (II) no one's forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
This MONTH I'm Loving... Fall Returns to TV!!
There is nothing a TVophile loves more than the start of the fall season, and I am there, baby!
I am that dork who puts show premieres on my calendar so I don't miss anything by allowing my ADD to let me forget when a show is set to start. For shows that are already in our DVR playlist and which don't have any dramatic shifts in time slot, we are good to go, but the new shows are sometimes tricky to keep track of.
This week, Entertainment Weekly came out with their Fall TV preview issue:
There is so much awesomeness on that cover, I didn't know where to begin. Actually, that's a lie. I began with Once Upon a Time, which is easily my favorite television drama right now. Thank you, ABC, for the mini-marathon last weekend!
Once was very closely followed by The Big Bang Theory (my favorite comedy), then The New Girl (my favorite theme song), the The Mindy Project (one of my most anticipated new shows).
What will the Pop Culture Household (or at least two of us) be watching this year?
Returning Shows
Sundays:
Once Upon a Time (Sept. 30, ABC)
Family Guy (Sept. 30, Fox)
Dexter (Sept. 30, Showtime)
Mondays:
Bones (Sept. 17, Fox)
How I Met Your Mother (Sept. 24, CBS)
2 Broke Girls (Sept. 24, CBS)
Mike & Molly (Sept. 24, CBS)
Castle (Sept. 24, ABC)
Tuesdays
Private Practice (Sept. 25, ABC)
Happy Endings (Oct. 23, ABC)
Don't Trust the B— in Apt. 23 (Oct. 23, ABC)
Raising Hope (Oct. 2, Fox)
The New Girl (Sept. 25, Fox)
Wednesdays
Modern Family (Sep. 26, ABC)
Law & Order: SVU (Sept. 26, NBC)
Suburgatory (Oct. 17, ABC)
American Horror Story (Oct. 17, FX)
Thursdays
Glee (Sept. 13, Fox)
Up All Night (Sept. 20, NBC)
Parks and Recreation (Sept. 20, NBC)
The Office (Sept. 20, NBC)
The Big Bang Theory (Sept. 27, CBS)
30 Rock (Oct. 4, NBC)
Fridays
Whitney (Oct. 19, NBC)
Community (Oct. 19, NBC)
Saturdays
Saturday Night Live (Sept. 15, NBC) — the first host will be Seth MacFarlane with musical guest Frank Ocean. Yes, please.
New Shows (We will watch these until they suck or get cancelled):*
*indicates I have already watched the pilot on U-verse OnDemand—thank you Big Four networks for making that happen (well, some of you, anyway)!
Sundays:
666 Park Avenue (Sept. 30, ABC)
Call the Midwife (Sept. 30, PBS) — you had me at the title
Mondays
Revolution (Sept. 17, NBC) — blatant Hunger Games ripoff, and I don't care
Partners (Sept. 24, CBS)
Tuesdays
*Go On (Sept. 11, NBC)
*The New Normal (Sept. 11, NBC)
*Ben and Kate (Sept. 25, Fox)
*The Mindy Project (Sept. 25, Fox)
Wednesdays
Guys With Kids (Sept. 26, NBC)
*Animal Practice (Sept. 26, NBC)
Nashville (Oct. 10, ABC)— I'm a sucker for Hayden Panettierre's one-note acting
The Neighbors (Sept. 26, ABC)
Thursdays
Elementary (Sept. 27, CBS) — Sherlock Holmes and Lucy Lu? Yes!
Fridays
Made in New Jersey (Sept. 28, CBS)
So, yes, if it is not totally obvious, I watch a lot of television. A lot. This doesn't even count the shows I love on alternative cable networks, like Psych on USA, which has its own weird season. Now, I just need to go clear the DVR of old Bubble Guppies, Peppa Pig, and Sesame Street episodes [Season 43 premieres Sept. 24, BTW], so we have room for all the grown-up shows!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I am that dork who puts show premieres on my calendar so I don't miss anything by allowing my ADD to let me forget when a show is set to start. For shows that are already in our DVR playlist and which don't have any dramatic shifts in time slot, we are good to go, but the new shows are sometimes tricky to keep track of.
This week, Entertainment Weekly came out with their Fall TV preview issue:
There is so much awesomeness on that cover, I didn't know where to begin. Actually, that's a lie. I began with Once Upon a Time, which is easily my favorite television drama right now. Thank you, ABC, for the mini-marathon last weekend!
Once was very closely followed by The Big Bang Theory (my favorite comedy), then The New Girl (my favorite theme song), the The Mindy Project (one of my most anticipated new shows).
What will the Pop Culture Household (or at least two of us) be watching this year?
Returning Shows
Sundays:
Once Upon a Time (Sept. 30, ABC)
Family Guy (Sept. 30, Fox)
Dexter (Sept. 30, Showtime)
Mondays:
Bones (Sept. 17, Fox)
How I Met Your Mother (Sept. 24, CBS)
2 Broke Girls (Sept. 24, CBS)
Mike & Molly (Sept. 24, CBS)
Castle (Sept. 24, ABC)
Tuesdays
Private Practice (Sept. 25, ABC)
Happy Endings (Oct. 23, ABC)
Don't Trust the B— in Apt. 23 (Oct. 23, ABC)
Raising Hope (Oct. 2, Fox)
The New Girl (Sept. 25, Fox)
Wednesdays
Modern Family (Sep. 26, ABC)
Law & Order: SVU (Sept. 26, NBC)
Suburgatory (Oct. 17, ABC)
American Horror Story (Oct. 17, FX)
Thursdays
Glee (Sept. 13, Fox)
Up All Night (Sept. 20, NBC)
Parks and Recreation (Sept. 20, NBC)
The Office (Sept. 20, NBC)
The Big Bang Theory (Sept. 27, CBS)
30 Rock (Oct. 4, NBC)
Fridays
Whitney (Oct. 19, NBC)
Community (Oct. 19, NBC)
Saturdays
Saturday Night Live (Sept. 15, NBC) — the first host will be Seth MacFarlane with musical guest Frank Ocean. Yes, please.
New Shows (We will watch these until they suck or get cancelled):*
*indicates I have already watched the pilot on U-verse OnDemand—thank you Big Four networks for making that happen (well, some of you, anyway)!
Sundays:
666 Park Avenue (Sept. 30, ABC)
Call the Midwife (Sept. 30, PBS) — you had me at the title
Mondays
Revolution (Sept. 17, NBC) — blatant Hunger Games ripoff, and I don't care
Partners (Sept. 24, CBS)
Tuesdays
*Go On (Sept. 11, NBC)
*The New Normal (Sept. 11, NBC)
*Ben and Kate (Sept. 25, Fox)
*The Mindy Project (Sept. 25, Fox)
Wednesdays
Guys With Kids (Sept. 26, NBC)
*Animal Practice (Sept. 26, NBC)
Nashville (Oct. 10, ABC)— I'm a sucker for Hayden Panettierre's one-note acting
The Neighbors (Sept. 26, ABC)
Thursdays
Elementary (Sept. 27, CBS) — Sherlock Holmes and Lucy Lu? Yes!
Fridays
Made in New Jersey (Sept. 28, CBS)
So, yes, if it is not totally obvious, I watch a lot of television. A lot. This doesn't even count the shows I love on alternative cable networks, like Psych on USA, which has its own weird season. Now, I just need to go clear the DVR of old Bubble Guppies, Peppa Pig, and Sesame Street episodes [Season 43 premieres Sept. 24, BTW], so we have room for all the grown-up shows!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
My Jillian Michaels Mini-Rant
Oh, are you here because you thought I was ranting against Jillian Michaels? Boy are you out of luck.
Look, personally, I'm no Jillian Michaels super fan. I didn't watch The Biggest Loser [I've seen it maybe three times ever]. I got her Wii Fitness game a couple years ago, and it bored me to tears -- now I know why it was on sale. I don't dislike her though. And, quite honestly, on a daily basis, I don't even think about her. I imagine most people don't.
All of the sudden, though, Jillian becomes a mom, and she's everywhere you look. Last week, when I saw the first picture of her adopted daughter and newborn son, as they say on Ni-Hao, Kai-Lan, "It made my heart feel super happy!". I'm one of those mommy-geeks, so any time I see a picture of a happy mother and child, I'm ecstatic. Even moreso than my usual mom-geekdom, however, I was overjoyed because Ms. Michaels and her partner adopted a child from Haiti and their biological baby [yes, I said "their." DEAL WITH IT] looks (though I am not sure if she is) biracial.
And then I read the comments on the article on People.com, and my super happy heart got super stabby. Forgive me, I'm still training myself to ignore the comments. I have to keep reminding myself that the anonymity of the internet makes every darn fool come out and show off their ignorance. I have to tell myself that most people don't think like the people who comment on news (including entertainment news) articles... If I let myself think that most of the world thinks like the comment world, I truly could not live here. I could not.
Apparently people of the Comment World fall into the following camps: (1) normal people who are happy to see a happy mother and that people are adopting [these are my peeps]; (2) people who are upset her child(ren are) is black; and (3) people who, most of whom weren't even aware of Jillian Michaels' sexuality prior to this point (I know I wasn't; didn't care either way. Still don't.), who can't get over the "OMG, she's gay! And why do gay people have babies? And is she going to make these babies gay? And that child isn't hers if she didn't carry it or contribute an egg!" camp. These are the people I'm ranting against. In a word: Seriously?!?!?!
First, how in the world does it affect you at all if Jillian Michaels and her partner, any other gay couple in the world, or even one singular gay person, has a child? You can't make someone gay by raising them with a gay parent or two--if you could, then straight people wouldn't keep having so many gay children, now would they? And even if you could "make" someone gay, who the eff cares?? How does anyone else's sexuality affect you on a personal basis, unless that person is the one with whom you are partnered?
I, for one, am glad to see children being raised in a loving home, and I am especially glad to see black children being adopted. Unless or until someone else adopts a needy child, I don't want to hear boo about what you think about another couple's right to adopt. NOTHING. Haters will hate, but they certainly won't do anything to help, now will they?
So, although I was Jillian Michaels neutral, consider me a new fan... of her as a mother. To those of you out there who are negatively and hyper concerned about the gender of the person she loves or the color of her children's skin, go get a life, why dontcha?
(photo by People magazine)
Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Look, personally, I'm no Jillian Michaels super fan. I didn't watch The Biggest Loser [I've seen it maybe three times ever]. I got her Wii Fitness game a couple years ago, and it bored me to tears -- now I know why it was on sale. I don't dislike her though. And, quite honestly, on a daily basis, I don't even think about her. I imagine most people don't.
All of the sudden, though, Jillian becomes a mom, and she's everywhere you look. Last week, when I saw the first picture of her adopted daughter and newborn son, as they say on Ni-Hao, Kai-Lan, "It made my heart feel super happy!". I'm one of those mommy-geeks, so any time I see a picture of a happy mother and child, I'm ecstatic. Even moreso than my usual mom-geekdom, however, I was overjoyed because Ms. Michaels and her partner adopted a child from Haiti and their biological baby [yes, I said "their." DEAL WITH IT] looks (though I am not sure if she is) biracial.
And then I read the comments on the article on People.com, and my super happy heart got super stabby. Forgive me, I'm still training myself to ignore the comments. I have to keep reminding myself that the anonymity of the internet makes every darn fool come out and show off their ignorance. I have to tell myself that most people don't think like the people who comment on news (including entertainment news) articles... If I let myself think that most of the world thinks like the comment world, I truly could not live here. I could not.
Apparently people of the Comment World fall into the following camps: (1) normal people who are happy to see a happy mother and that people are adopting [these are my peeps]; (2) people who are upset her child(ren are) is black; and (3) people who, most of whom weren't even aware of Jillian Michaels' sexuality prior to this point (I know I wasn't; didn't care either way. Still don't.), who can't get over the "OMG, she's gay! And why do gay people have babies? And is she going to make these babies gay? And that child isn't hers if she didn't carry it or contribute an egg!" camp. These are the people I'm ranting against. In a word: Seriously?!?!?!
First, how in the world does it affect you at all if Jillian Michaels and her partner, any other gay couple in the world, or even one singular gay person, has a child? You can't make someone gay by raising them with a gay parent or two--if you could, then straight people wouldn't keep having so many gay children, now would they? And even if you could "make" someone gay, who the eff cares?? How does anyone else's sexuality affect you on a personal basis, unless that person is the one with whom you are partnered?
I, for one, am glad to see children being raised in a loving home, and I am especially glad to see black children being adopted. Unless or until someone else adopts a needy child, I don't want to hear boo about what you think about another couple's right to adopt. NOTHING. Haters will hate, but they certainly won't do anything to help, now will they?
So, although I was Jillian Michaels neutral, consider me a new fan... of her as a mother. To those of you out there who are negatively and hyper concerned about the gender of the person she loves or the color of her children's skin, go get a life, why dontcha?
Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
And This Is Why Old Wives' Tales Are Stupid
Every pregnant woman has experienced it. Before you find out your baby's gender (or before you give birth if you opt, as I did, to not find out your baby's gender), nearly every person with whom you have contact will try to guess whether you're having a boy or a girl. Some people just go on vibes and gut feelings. Some guess based on the genders of your other children, if any. But many, if not most, revert to old wives' tales.
Using old wives' tales to guess gender can be fun, no doubt. But just like Inelligender, take it with a grain of salt. There is a 50/50 chance of them being right--the same odds as if you flip a coin. I have no problem with people having fun with a good guess. But the people who take these things seriously and insist on their correctness... yeah, those people made me stabby when I was pregnant. And for all those people, here's my nah-nah-ne-boo-boo to you--My handy dandy chart of how the old wives' tales meant nothing when it came to Pop Culture Preschooler and Pop Culture Baby:
Old Wives' Tale
|
Pop Culture Preschooler
|
Pop Culture Baby
|
| Carrying: High (girl) vs Low (boy) | High | Low |
| Can you tell mom is pregnant from the back? (yes = girl) | YES | No |
| Girls steal mom's beauty | Definitely. I was fug. | Looking better than ever |
| Acne? | Tons. What is this--high school?? | My skin has never been more clear |
| Breast growth? | Up two cup sizes in the first trimester (yes!!) | Stayed practically the same until birth (boo) |
| Cravings? Salty and tart for boys. Sugary for girls | ground beef, chili, pineapple, lemons, ice cream, cake | pineapple, lemons, donuts, crawfish |
| Heart rate (>140 = girl) | 130s | 150s |
| Morning Sickness? (girls make you sick) | None | Tons... for nearly 20 weeks |
| Ring Swing: back and forth, girl. Circle, boy | circle | back and forth |
| Intelligender result | N/A | boy |
I have two girls.
Regardless of what the old wives' tales say each aspect should mean, the bottom line is my pregnancies couldn't have been more different (except, you know, lemons and pineapples; but I crave those even not pregnant). It doesn't end here. Name one aspect of pregnancy, I can tell you how nothing was the same from my first pregnancy to the second. The bottom line is, the old wives' tales mean nothing. There is no magic formula that's going to tell you what gender your baby is. The closest you can get to accuracy is an ultrasound, and, well, even those mess up sometimes. Sorry, ladies.
A Storm of Controversy Over Baby's Gender (or Lack Thereof)
(Photo courtesy of Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
By now you have all heard the news about little Storm, the Canadian boy or girl whose parents have decided not to reveal his/her gender after the baby was born. The parents explain their decision as an idea in support of "a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)". While that is certainly a lofty and notable goal (for many of us, anyway), I think they have gone about it in the wrong way.
To me, choosing to hide their baby's gender from the outside world is putting a huge value on that quality, thus essentially making the argument that gender is the most important thing about a person. This is exactly the opposite sentiment of what the parents were trying to promote.
Those of you who actually read this blog regularly (I know for a fact there are at least three of you 
) know that I am Team Noneya -- completely against revealing my fetus's gender to the outside world (and, in the current case, even to myself). I hate the all-blue/all-pink traps people fall into, and the last thing I wanted was a monochromatic baby shower with sometimes impractical and practically identical gifts. However, I have no problem telling people after my child is born that s/he is a boy or a girl. The fact is, prior to birth, there is no personality to which to ascribe my unborn child. There are also no physical traits to dictate which colors or patterns would look best on it. After my child is born, however, it's easy to tell which colors look better with its skin tone, hair color, eyes, etc. And after my child gets older (usually around age one is when the preferences begin to be expressed), I can buy things for my child that s/he actually likes. Not to mention, the gifts are less frequent at that point, and it is a lot easier to reject one impractical or ugly frilly dress or football jersey than it is twenty. It is also easier to just begrudgingly accept that one gift and stick it in the back of a closet until it makes it into the Goodwill pile than it would a dozen. [Yes, people, I don't keep every unsolicited gift you give me just because you like it]
Pop Culture Toddler has clear preferences about things. She has had these preferences since she was only a few months old. Given a choice of eight differently colored but otherwise identical toys, she always went for red, purple, or pink. The only way to get a guaranteed smile out of her at six months old was to give her a feather boa and let her go crazy. Now that she's older, she demands to wear bows and tutus. She talks about being a princess or a ballerina. She loves carrying baby dolls around the house and playing Mommy. She is a dainty little flower who cries at the drop of a hat (and goes into histrionics just as easily -- drama queen). When we let her choose three colors for her new "big girl" room, the colors she picked were yellow, purple, and pink. She is, without a doubt, a girlie girl. In spite of this, however, the girl loves dinosaurs and cars (and Cars).
I was the opposite as a child. Given the choice, I wanted Matchbox cars over Barbie. I would cry any time someone put me in a dress. All I wanted to do was climb trees, run, play basketball or football, and wrestle. I thought He-Man and Transformers were the Second Coming of cartoons. I was most definitely a tomboy. My mother and aunts always tried to curb my preferences, because girls "shouldn't play" the way I wanted to play. I had more Barbie dolls than I could count -- with the pink Ferrari, Dream House and pool to match. I would cut that bitch's hair off and pull off her arms. It was not my thing. And there was nothing my mom's family could do to change that. I never denied that I was a girl; I just didn't want to play with toys or wear clothes that I was told were what girls are "supposed to like." My preferences for playthings had nothing to do with my sex or my sexuality.
My friend has a son who likes nail polish and girls' clothes. He's not quite at "princess boy" level, but he definitely likes some things that would make lesser parents squeamish. My friend lets her son be who he is. Maybe the slight cross-dressing is a stage, and maybe it isn't. But she has decided that her son will be himself -- at least at home. He does not deny he's a boy. Never has, and I doubt he ever will. In fact, some day, he will probably make a very good and sensitive husband for some lucky young lady [not that there would be anything wrong with him being a good husband to a lucky young man].
The thing is, my friend didn't have to deny her son's gender in order to let him be himself, just like my aunts and mother did not need to force specific toys and clothes on me to reinforce the fact that I am a girl [hear that, Pop Culture Nonna???]. We are who we are; it's just a biological fact. But if we start acting like denying biology is a way to gender equality, that's just wrong. By saying that the only way you can allow someone to be him- or herself is to deny a basic biological fact is placing a higher importance on that biological fact than I think is necessary.
Put another way: I am black. I am obviously black, there's no doubt about it [even those who mistake me for Dominican or Puerto Rican would acknowledge that I clearly have a large presence of African genes]. Had my parents somehow wrapped me in a shroud and "hid" my racial identity, it wouldn't change the person I am. However, it would send out a clear message that somehow my parents thought that my racial identity was the most important thing about me. It's not. Sure, there are some bigots out there who treat me differently because of my race (and I'll acknowledge, some because of my gender), but these people should not dictate who I am and what type of life I decide to lead. Ignorant people will always be ignorant; but should we live to cater to them or hide from them? Of course not.
Now, on the subject of ignorance... I will admit that I have seen some pretty ignorant comments relating to the Storm controversy. Most of these ignorant comments were to the tune of "parents should force girls to act a certain way and boys to act a certain way" and "let the child choose his sexual orientation later." I am certain these ignorant commenters were the kinds of people the parents had in mind when they made the decision to hide Storm's gender. However, no matter how many comments I see on the Internet, I refuse to believe that the majority of people with whom these parents associate on a daily basis think this way. I know I certainly don't associate with these people unless forced to, and I'm willing to bet it's a lot easier to meet people of this mindset in Texas than it is Toronto (yes, I'm stereotyping).
Now for someone who actually reads my blog who thinks that way [though I can't imagine, with my opinions on these kind of topics, who would have possibly stuck around this long who feels that way], let me tell you why this thinking is ignorant:
(1) There is no one way to "be" a boy or a girl. By imposing one societal view of gender on your children, you are not necessarily raising them to be better children. In fact, there is a good argument that by suppressing their natural preferences to things [as my mother and aunts tried to do with me], you are actually doing more harm than good. Where would the world be if girls were taught that the only way to be a girl was to wear pink, love to cook, and raise babies? And where would boys be if they were told the only way to be a boy was to be extra-tough, wear blue, and love sports? Not somewhere I'd want to live, for sure.
(2) Lack of identification with/preference for stereotypically assigned gender qualities is not an indication of sexual preference or even gender identity. There are plenty of "red-blooded," heterosexual men who like the color pink [in fact, did you know that not even a century ago pink was the color "assigned" to boy and blue to girls?], just like there are plenty of feminine, heterosexual women who love football and wouldn't be caught dead in a dress.
(3) Sexual orientation is not anything one "chooses." Yes, you can choose whether or not to act on sexual preferences -- history is replete with examples of gay men and women who have lived in a closet to avoid social persecution -- but whether or not someone acts on their natural sexual urges is not an indication of their sexual orientation, any more than your sexual orientation was in limbo when you were a virgin. Regardless of what those idiotic "Ex-Gay" people promote, you cannot change your sexual orientation, any more than I could make myself Asian. And for those of you who for some silly reason still don't get it, ponder this: What exactly would it take to "turn" you gay? Nothing? Then why in the world would you think someone else could be "turned"? And further more, why do you care? Trust me, if your child is gay, there's nothing you said or did that made them gay (other than providing their genetic code). And once people get over their ignorant assumptions about sexuality, then maybe we can get to a place where people can stop preaching hate, bigotry and intolerance against others simply because of the simple biological difference of their sexual orientation. However, since we have not even gotten close to getting that way with race or gender, I won't hold my breath.
In any event, I am actually a little bit in awe of how this became a major news story. Yes, it's pretty odd and different; but really, is it any stranger than many of the other parenting decisions people make on a daily basis? And by focusing so much attention on this and the speculation of whether Storm is really a boy or a girl [personally, I don't know them and even if I did, I don't really care one way or the other], aren't we somehow sending a message (one I think is a wrong one) that gender is grossly important?
Posts
