Sunday, 9:52 a.m.
I am going to describe a phenomenon that I think only parents can truly appreciate. As much as I hate to play the old "you wouldn't get it, you're not a parent" card (the ultimate hipster douche comment,) in this case I am talking about a particular feeling that, while anyone can understand, only those who have felt this feeling in context can really empathize with what I'm describing.
When you have young children, usually just past toddler age, quiet moments are hard to come by. In particular, if you have two or more such kids, they will spend approximately 99.7% of their waking moments cranked up to eleven. They have an innate ability to find the specific resonant frequency of your skull, and can create sympathetic vibrations capable of rendering you inchoate with convulsive rage spasms.
They scream and yell a lot, is what I am saying.
But every once in a while, the stars slide into perfect alignment. Virgo rises in the seventh house and Venus is ascendent, the Great Sky Spirit lays his mantle of peace upon the land, the Fates pause at their weaving, and all the dice show twenties. And in this most auspicious moment of golden joy, there is quiet. Blessed, divine silence.
Suddenly, the constant, reverberating clangor that is the cosmic background radiation of a parent's universe is stilled. The throbbing in your brain slows to a standstill, and you release the breath that you did not realize you had been holding for the past month or so and, just for a moment, you relax.
Suddenly you can hear the distant singing of birds. You unclench previously uncatalogued muscles around your neck region. Life slows down for a moment and you remember your life before the coming of the offspring.
For me, it was today, when Arthur (3) was in his room playing quietly. Grace (5) was reading (!) in her room, oblivious to the world around her. Mommy was working out front, and I was simply working in the kitchen, loading the dishwasher like I was raking the pebble garden in a Zen monastery. The sunlight was at the kitchen window, and it was just me, the clatter of dishes lining up in neat order, and the soft drone of a lazy bumblebee outside my window.
Here's the 'parents only' part. Because while all of us have enjoyed a moment of silence now and again, those with small children will truly know this feeling. How can I describe it to those of you who may not have kids of your own? What words could possibly capture the essence of this sensation?
I think the closest I can come to it is stark terror.
Or maybe dread is more accurate. Yes, definitely dread. A cold, creeping dread that steals in through the cracks and joints of your spirit and slowly chills you to the marrow like the doomed protagonist of a Jack London story. This sort of dread rolls in like a sickly fog, billowing higher and higher until all around you is obscured in the thick pall of icy, existential fear that consumes all the light and hope in the world.
But it never comes alone.
Because with it seeps the denser, more syrupy texture of guilt. Because silence in children is unnatural, and demands investigation. And yet every fibre of your body screams out to let it go unexplored, clutching with all the fierceness of sleep, fighting against the intrusions of a 5 a.m. alarm clock.
You know you have to stop what you are doing and check on the children, because of that very unnatural calm that allowed you to relax in the first place. But, come on! Can't you just have five more minutes?
No.
Because you've seen too many horrifying after school specials and grisly public service announcements to ever rest again. Every city bus that rolls past in traffic displays one more imminent threat of death to your child, and every stoic, judging billboard carries a stern reminder of your inadequacy as a parent and the looming disaster that awaits the unwary.
For you non-parents, I want you to think of a horror movie. Pretty much any one will do, they nearly all feature the same requisite scene. There comes a point where one of the hapless characters fears that there is something, something lurking in the closet/attic/laboratory/abandoned hunting cabin in Murder Woods.
So of course they decide to go check it out. You scream at these benighted simpletons, warning them not to throw their fictional lives away on a fool's errand. Why can't they understand their deadly folly, and simply torch the entire structure and run screaming away forever? You know what they should do of course, because you know what terrible fate awaits them within, and devoutly wish you could warn them of the ghost/zombie horde/sports equipment-clad serial killer awaiting them, but alas, they stumble forward to meet their grisly fate, flashlights raised. But of course they must check it out, because they do not know of the horrors that await them.
This, my childless friends, is what silence is like for parents. We must go check it out. No matter how many times we peer in the door to find them calmly engaged in play, looking up in innocent curiosity, making mockery of our worry, we still must investigate.
Afterwards, we try to return to that restful quiet, but alas, it is gone. Like touching a delicate soap bubble, childsilence bursts as soon as it is prodded, any investigation shattering the moment as surely as observing a quantum event will alter its outcome.
And so, the bone-jarring din resumes, the juicebox-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of experience is drowned (out by the high pitched caterwaul of infantile voices.) And the great wheel of parenthood rolls forward, grinding your sanity to meal, one squeal of laughter or indignant screech at a time.
I love my kids.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Monday, August 12, 2013
School Grades: All F'ed Up
Tomorrow morning, my wife and I return to work as teachers in a public school in Palm Beach County, Florida. Next Monday, the school year begins for students, and all across our county, parents will be sending their children to new schools, institutions they know nothing about. And for many (sadly not all,) parents, this is worrisome, because they want only the best for their children, including (for some especially,) an education.
And what is more natural than parents advocating for their children? Today we expect parents to strive to provide for their kids, from working hard to afford the things the family needs, to reading labels on food to make healthy choices, to elbowing another parent in the throat to get the last toy on the shelf at a Black Friday sale, we have no shortage of examples of parents working (sometimes excessively perhaps,) to give their children the best life they can, and in the only ways available to them.
For such caring and dedicated parents, making sure that their children go to the best school available to them is a priority. And for those who cannot afford private school or homeschooling, that means sending their kids to the local public school assigned to them. But what kind of school is it? Most of these parents have never walked the halls of this school, or spoken to administrators, nor met the teachers that will be instructing their children. How then can parents know the quality of these schools, and understand how well their children can succeed?
Well according to many, they need only check out the school grade. This system, pioneered here in Florida about fifteen years ago, has since spread to many other states. Using a wide array of measurements and criteria, and utilizing the simple and familiar 'A to F' scale, this system allows parents to tell at a glance if their local school is competent to teach their child and prepare them for success in life.
But it is my sad duty to inform you that the system is completely broken, and the conclusions drawn from it are entirely false.
"But you're a teacher!" you protest, "obviously you think school grades are a bad idea, that's just because your salary is tied to it!" And that is a fair point, when someone has a financial stake in a subject, you should always question their points, and consider their viewpoint.
Except... the thing is, my salary isn't affected by the school grades. Sure, there are people who want to make that happen, and indeed they have been talking about that for 15 years now in my state, and it hasn't happened. It may well never happen, given all the roadblocks and impracticalities to such a suggestion.
However, even when you leave teachers out of the equation and just look at the school grades as a deciding factor for parents looking out for their child's best interest, the system in place now is entirely flawed, and can work against the best wishes of parents for their children.
That's because the system is based on the central premise that all children, at all grades, and from all backgrounds, come to school each year with the same levels of ability and information. Each year, the students are essentially grade level appropriate blank slates. Any teacher should be able to bring every student in the class up to grade level equally.
That many absolutes has surely set off your malarky sensors, but I assure you, that is the absolute truth as to how the system works. Every aspect of the school grade system relies upon that basic premise. And since the premise is flawed, every assumption after that is already doomed to failure, no matter how well thought out it might be.
Let me begin by clarifying that the grade does not measure the school at all. It's measuring the students. Over the years, they have added a number of criteria to school grade (graduation rate, discipline referrals, etc.) but the heart of it still revolves around a single standardized test. If students fail, they may be scheduled into remedial classes next year, but they can try again and again until graduation to pass the test. But their failure affects the school's grade. If you are a kid already taking remedial courses, where is the incentive to try hard to pass the first time? I personally know of kids who blow off the test in ninth and tenth grade, because older students told them that the retakes are easier.
And these tests do not measure an individual student's progress to determine grades, they simply compare this year's kids with last year's groups like zoologists counting lemmings. It is solely the students' performance that is measured, not the teaching that is taking place in the classrooms. The grade purports to tell you how good the teachers are at a school, but how can they do that if teachers themselves aren't a factor?
Consider this: at no point in the grading do they actually look at teachers themselves. Not once. We never have to take a competence test (I would LOVE that,) nor are our credentials, years of service, degrees or testimonials factored into the grade. Now that means positive or negative.
If a school consists of a majority of experienced, highly educated teachers with dozens of awards and praise from countless parents, the grade will not reflect that. And if the majority of teachers are new and inexperienced, with lousy records and multiple warnings or other censures in their records? That will not be reflected in the grade either.
No doubt you may make the argument that those two hypothetical schools would show themselves in their grade. But that too is a fallacy. Since the system only looks at students, and only a selection of students, you may see a grade (high or low) that will not reflect how your child will be taught. If the system only looks at tenth grade test scores in reading and math (which is pretty common,) then how many teachers are they theoretically looking at? How will your child do in their Freshman, Junior and Senior years? Does the school specifically put the hardest working, most dedicated teachers with the specific group of kids that are tested for school grade? You better believe that schools do things like that to raise their grades. What about your kid? Are you sure they are going to get those teachers?
Which brings us to the real problem of this system.
If you are a parent, let me ask you this question: is your kid really the same as all the other kids? Does everything that affects other kids affect your kid the same way? When someone gives you parenting advice on how to raise your child, do you accept that as the truth, or do you first consider what you know about your own unique little snowflake and decide if that is likely to apply to him or her? Your kid is specific and individual, and when it comes to parenting, one size does not fit all.
Why would you assume that education is any different? Do you really believe that the same teacher, using the same method for each of a hundred plus kids is going to get the same results with each one? Imagine if your kid is not understanding the material a teacher is presenting in a particular way, and when you ask about alternate ways of conveying the information, the teacher simply says "the other kids get it when I do this, yours just needs to get with the program."
I know, I want to punch the hypothetical teacher too, and I am a hypothetical teacher. I hate being asked to alter my process just because little Johnny doesn't 'get it.' But you know what? I do it anyway. Then I start a blog so I can bitch about it.
But school grade assumes you do buy into the one size fits all approach. I mean, if you look at an A school, and think your kid is automatically going to do well there (especially if they have had problems in the past,) you are sadly misinformed. Likewise, if you think that sending your A student to a C school means their grades will go down or their education will suffer, this is just as ill conceived.
And you know what? Both of those scenarios are still possible. But if you are making assumptions based on the school grade...well there's an old expression about what happens when you assume.
School grade tells you how the specific kids they tested this year (not all kids,) did when compared to the specific kids they tested last year. And how much do you know about these tests, anyway? Are you okay taking someone's word that these tests are accurate measurement's of a student's real ability? And beyond that, that those tests measure what your child will actually learn in class?
And then there's the cheating...
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the kids are cheating, or that the teachers are cooking the results (we'd love to, but we really can't do that, it's handled by the state.) I mean that schools (and the district) play a lot of games with those grades.
There is a school in my district that always gets A's. And they probably always will, but that is because they cheat. Okay, to be fair, it is an arts magnet school that has been around since before the tests and school grades. To get into this school, students must audition before a panel (art, music, theater, etc.) and be accepted. And if you do not abide by the school's policies (both academic or disciplinary,) you can be sent packing.
So this school gets to pick which kids can attend, and can get rid of kids who do not perform academically, and people are amazed that they get A's? I call shenanigans on that. And the most galling aspect of that is that it is compared to the rest of the public schools in the county. Apparently those teachers just work harder. (As an aside, one of my wife's favorite students last year was a girl who transferred to our school from this arts magnet, because her parents didn't feel she was getting a good enough science education.)
My district also has a lot of high-poverty schools, and my wife and I teach at one of them. Our Hispanic population is the single biggest demographic at my school, and the majority of them are recent immigrants who are or were in the ELL (English Language Learners, formerly ESOL) program. We have to fight every year because no matter how well our kids do on the test in general, we are constantly in danger of failing because of a little-known aspect of school grade.
One of those factors involves looking at how the school's lowest 25% of performers (you'll have to ask someone with a higher pay grade than me as to how they decide who goes on that list,) do on the test (again, compared to last year's group.) If a school does not show an adequate amount of improvement in the performance of the lowest 25%, their grade drops automatically.
Can you guess the demographic makeup of nearly ALL of my school"s lowest 25%?
So if you have a group of students still learning English (which is the ONLY language the test is offered in,) that do poorly, and you work hard to teach them and improve by next year, when does that improvement show? Next year, it's a whole new group of ELL students whose scores get compared.
Is this how you see your children? As completely interchangeable cogs in a system? Because I, and all the teachers that I know, certainly don't. We've been complaining about this system for years, even without worrying that our paycheck might be one day tied to it.
And what does the research show? If you were to assume that students will only do as well or as poorly as the teachers teach them, then what do the years of statistics gathered by the tests say?
That some years we just don't try very hard. That's it. For some unexplainable reason, some years the test scores (and graduation rates and discipline etc.) are better than others. A biologist studying slime molds would look to environmental factors to explain this disparity. A demographer might look at changes in the school boundaries from year to year. And an asshole would say that the teachers just didn't care enough.
But teachers (and I feel parents as well) know that kids are people, and any grouping of people will be a unique event. Comparing them blindly does a disservice to all.
And what if all this was true? Even if the grades were a 100% accurate measurement of the quality of education offered at a school, is your kid going to get that quality? Look at the best performing schools. Are there still kids failing and dropping out there, or graduating with a 'certificate of completion' instead of a real diploma? Yup.
And do you find amazing success stories at poorly rated schools? Kids that got an excellent education and were prepared to go on to college and succeed? Double yup.
But to use either example to judge the rest is just asinine. To not send your kid to the one or to preferentially send them to the other based on inaccurate data is a plan for failure.
So school grades are crap, pure and simple. You can't determine how good of an education your child will receive by looking at the grade. So what can parents do to check out the school?
Get involved. Go to the school and check it out on your own. Talk to the teachers. Talk to the administrators. Talk to the librarians (if they still have any,) and to the students themselves. If your kid has friends who already attend the new school, ask them about their teachers. Their responses may not be the most factual, but you can glean a lot of information by reading between the lines.
Reach out to your community. If you are active in church, somebody will have things to say. Other parents will tell you teachers that really reached their children, and those who wasted their time. This can give you a chance at working with your child's guidance counselor to put them in the classes you feel would be best for them. If that doesn't work, you will know when you might want to consider extra work for your child, either from tutors or using online resources.
The state will never give you as accurate a read on how things work at a school as you can obtain from people who actually know from experience.
There is a lot of talk about this system right now in Florida, since our state education commissioner just resigned because he altered the formula when he was in another state, apparently to fix the grades of schools that were 'supposed to be an A.' Even if those were not his motives, does it fill you with confidence?
Last year, officials drastically changed the formula after school grades were calculated, because they said the results skewed too low, citing statistical error. And now the same state officials that originally supported the adoption of this system are saying the formula itself is flawed and needs to be completely overhauled.
In the end, I'm going to go against the teacher's credo and tell you to ignore the grade. It does not reflect the most important thing you need to know: what kind of education your child will receive.
And what is more natural than parents advocating for their children? Today we expect parents to strive to provide for their kids, from working hard to afford the things the family needs, to reading labels on food to make healthy choices, to elbowing another parent in the throat to get the last toy on the shelf at a Black Friday sale, we have no shortage of examples of parents working (sometimes excessively perhaps,) to give their children the best life they can, and in the only ways available to them.
For such caring and dedicated parents, making sure that their children go to the best school available to them is a priority. And for those who cannot afford private school or homeschooling, that means sending their kids to the local public school assigned to them. But what kind of school is it? Most of these parents have never walked the halls of this school, or spoken to administrators, nor met the teachers that will be instructing their children. How then can parents know the quality of these schools, and understand how well their children can succeed?
Well according to many, they need only check out the school grade. This system, pioneered here in Florida about fifteen years ago, has since spread to many other states. Using a wide array of measurements and criteria, and utilizing the simple and familiar 'A to F' scale, this system allows parents to tell at a glance if their local school is competent to teach their child and prepare them for success in life.
But it is my sad duty to inform you that the system is completely broken, and the conclusions drawn from it are entirely false.
"But you're a teacher!" you protest, "obviously you think school grades are a bad idea, that's just because your salary is tied to it!" And that is a fair point, when someone has a financial stake in a subject, you should always question their points, and consider their viewpoint.
Except... the thing is, my salary isn't affected by the school grades. Sure, there are people who want to make that happen, and indeed they have been talking about that for 15 years now in my state, and it hasn't happened. It may well never happen, given all the roadblocks and impracticalities to such a suggestion.
However, even when you leave teachers out of the equation and just look at the school grades as a deciding factor for parents looking out for their child's best interest, the system in place now is entirely flawed, and can work against the best wishes of parents for their children.
That's because the system is based on the central premise that all children, at all grades, and from all backgrounds, come to school each year with the same levels of ability and information. Each year, the students are essentially grade level appropriate blank slates. Any teacher should be able to bring every student in the class up to grade level equally.
That many absolutes has surely set off your malarky sensors, but I assure you, that is the absolute truth as to how the system works. Every aspect of the school grade system relies upon that basic premise. And since the premise is flawed, every assumption after that is already doomed to failure, no matter how well thought out it might be.
Let me begin by clarifying that the grade does not measure the school at all. It's measuring the students. Over the years, they have added a number of criteria to school grade (graduation rate, discipline referrals, etc.) but the heart of it still revolves around a single standardized test. If students fail, they may be scheduled into remedial classes next year, but they can try again and again until graduation to pass the test. But their failure affects the school's grade. If you are a kid already taking remedial courses, where is the incentive to try hard to pass the first time? I personally know of kids who blow off the test in ninth and tenth grade, because older students told them that the retakes are easier.
And these tests do not measure an individual student's progress to determine grades, they simply compare this year's kids with last year's groups like zoologists counting lemmings. It is solely the students' performance that is measured, not the teaching that is taking place in the classrooms. The grade purports to tell you how good the teachers are at a school, but how can they do that if teachers themselves aren't a factor?
Consider this: at no point in the grading do they actually look at teachers themselves. Not once. We never have to take a competence test (I would LOVE that,) nor are our credentials, years of service, degrees or testimonials factored into the grade. Now that means positive or negative.
If a school consists of a majority of experienced, highly educated teachers with dozens of awards and praise from countless parents, the grade will not reflect that. And if the majority of teachers are new and inexperienced, with lousy records and multiple warnings or other censures in their records? That will not be reflected in the grade either.
No doubt you may make the argument that those two hypothetical schools would show themselves in their grade. But that too is a fallacy. Since the system only looks at students, and only a selection of students, you may see a grade (high or low) that will not reflect how your child will be taught. If the system only looks at tenth grade test scores in reading and math (which is pretty common,) then how many teachers are they theoretically looking at? How will your child do in their Freshman, Junior and Senior years? Does the school specifically put the hardest working, most dedicated teachers with the specific group of kids that are tested for school grade? You better believe that schools do things like that to raise their grades. What about your kid? Are you sure they are going to get those teachers?
Which brings us to the real problem of this system.
If you are a parent, let me ask you this question: is your kid really the same as all the other kids? Does everything that affects other kids affect your kid the same way? When someone gives you parenting advice on how to raise your child, do you accept that as the truth, or do you first consider what you know about your own unique little snowflake and decide if that is likely to apply to him or her? Your kid is specific and individual, and when it comes to parenting, one size does not fit all.
Why would you assume that education is any different? Do you really believe that the same teacher, using the same method for each of a hundred plus kids is going to get the same results with each one? Imagine if your kid is not understanding the material a teacher is presenting in a particular way, and when you ask about alternate ways of conveying the information, the teacher simply says "the other kids get it when I do this, yours just needs to get with the program."
I know, I want to punch the hypothetical teacher too, and I am a hypothetical teacher. I hate being asked to alter my process just because little Johnny doesn't 'get it.' But you know what? I do it anyway. Then I start a blog so I can bitch about it.
But school grade assumes you do buy into the one size fits all approach. I mean, if you look at an A school, and think your kid is automatically going to do well there (especially if they have had problems in the past,) you are sadly misinformed. Likewise, if you think that sending your A student to a C school means their grades will go down or their education will suffer, this is just as ill conceived.
And you know what? Both of those scenarios are still possible. But if you are making assumptions based on the school grade...well there's an old expression about what happens when you assume.
School grade tells you how the specific kids they tested this year (not all kids,) did when compared to the specific kids they tested last year. And how much do you know about these tests, anyway? Are you okay taking someone's word that these tests are accurate measurement's of a student's real ability? And beyond that, that those tests measure what your child will actually learn in class?
And then there's the cheating...
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the kids are cheating, or that the teachers are cooking the results (we'd love to, but we really can't do that, it's handled by the state.) I mean that schools (and the district) play a lot of games with those grades.
There is a school in my district that always gets A's. And they probably always will, but that is because they cheat. Okay, to be fair, it is an arts magnet school that has been around since before the tests and school grades. To get into this school, students must audition before a panel (art, music, theater, etc.) and be accepted. And if you do not abide by the school's policies (both academic or disciplinary,) you can be sent packing.
So this school gets to pick which kids can attend, and can get rid of kids who do not perform academically, and people are amazed that they get A's? I call shenanigans on that. And the most galling aspect of that is that it is compared to the rest of the public schools in the county. Apparently those teachers just work harder. (As an aside, one of my wife's favorite students last year was a girl who transferred to our school from this arts magnet, because her parents didn't feel she was getting a good enough science education.)
My district also has a lot of high-poverty schools, and my wife and I teach at one of them. Our Hispanic population is the single biggest demographic at my school, and the majority of them are recent immigrants who are or were in the ELL (English Language Learners, formerly ESOL) program. We have to fight every year because no matter how well our kids do on the test in general, we are constantly in danger of failing because of a little-known aspect of school grade.
One of those factors involves looking at how the school's lowest 25% of performers (you'll have to ask someone with a higher pay grade than me as to how they decide who goes on that list,) do on the test (again, compared to last year's group.) If a school does not show an adequate amount of improvement in the performance of the lowest 25%, their grade drops automatically.
Can you guess the demographic makeup of nearly ALL of my school"s lowest 25%?
So if you have a group of students still learning English (which is the ONLY language the test is offered in,) that do poorly, and you work hard to teach them and improve by next year, when does that improvement show? Next year, it's a whole new group of ELL students whose scores get compared.
Is this how you see your children? As completely interchangeable cogs in a system? Because I, and all the teachers that I know, certainly don't. We've been complaining about this system for years, even without worrying that our paycheck might be one day tied to it.
And what does the research show? If you were to assume that students will only do as well or as poorly as the teachers teach them, then what do the years of statistics gathered by the tests say?
That some years we just don't try very hard. That's it. For some unexplainable reason, some years the test scores (and graduation rates and discipline etc.) are better than others. A biologist studying slime molds would look to environmental factors to explain this disparity. A demographer might look at changes in the school boundaries from year to year. And an asshole would say that the teachers just didn't care enough.
But teachers (and I feel parents as well) know that kids are people, and any grouping of people will be a unique event. Comparing them blindly does a disservice to all.
And what if all this was true? Even if the grades were a 100% accurate measurement of the quality of education offered at a school, is your kid going to get that quality? Look at the best performing schools. Are there still kids failing and dropping out there, or graduating with a 'certificate of completion' instead of a real diploma? Yup.
And do you find amazing success stories at poorly rated schools? Kids that got an excellent education and were prepared to go on to college and succeed? Double yup.
But to use either example to judge the rest is just asinine. To not send your kid to the one or to preferentially send them to the other based on inaccurate data is a plan for failure.
So school grades are crap, pure and simple. You can't determine how good of an education your child will receive by looking at the grade. So what can parents do to check out the school?
Get involved. Go to the school and check it out on your own. Talk to the teachers. Talk to the administrators. Talk to the librarians (if they still have any,) and to the students themselves. If your kid has friends who already attend the new school, ask them about their teachers. Their responses may not be the most factual, but you can glean a lot of information by reading between the lines.
Reach out to your community. If you are active in church, somebody will have things to say. Other parents will tell you teachers that really reached their children, and those who wasted their time. This can give you a chance at working with your child's guidance counselor to put them in the classes you feel would be best for them. If that doesn't work, you will know when you might want to consider extra work for your child, either from tutors or using online resources.
The state will never give you as accurate a read on how things work at a school as you can obtain from people who actually know from experience.
There is a lot of talk about this system right now in Florida, since our state education commissioner just resigned because he altered the formula when he was in another state, apparently to fix the grades of schools that were 'supposed to be an A.' Even if those were not his motives, does it fill you with confidence?
Last year, officials drastically changed the formula after school grades were calculated, because they said the results skewed too low, citing statistical error. And now the same state officials that originally supported the adoption of this system are saying the formula itself is flawed and needs to be completely overhauled.
In the end, I'm going to go against the teacher's credo and tell you to ignore the grade. It does not reflect the most important thing you need to know: what kind of education your child will receive.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
He Who Does Not Learn From Future History Is Doomed To Experience It
In studying the history of ancient cultures such as Ancient Murica, one can often trace the inception of deeply-held national values, and track their development.
One such aspect of the Murican character was the complex economic relationship known as the safety-freedom exchange. We know that the Ancient Murican people enjoyed in currency and commodity trading, both as a central tenet of their religious practices, but also as recreation. But this particular exchange was apparently woven into the political structure, and was a key element of the peaceful transfer of power between regimes.
The Murican political system was a tribal affair, with executive power shared between a sacrificial public figurehead known as a "President," and a council of elders known as "Congress." Each had their power checked by something called "Gridlock," which archaeological evidence suggests was a powerful robotic dinosaur, and only the tribe who could defeat this beast could expect to enact any meaningful changes.
There were two tribes at this time, known as Republicans and Democrats, each represented by a totem animal and color (Recent discoveries form the sunken city of Angeles suggest these tribes may have had their roots in smaller tribes known as "Crips" and "Bloods." Although some have suggested this is merely a coincidence, the similarities in the colors and vehemence inherent in the rivalry offers strong evidence for this theory.)
There is evidence that smaller "third parties" existed at the fringes of this society, eking out a living as hunter gatherers, or serving as a priesthood caste, extolling the masses with promises of a better life in some fictional paradise that never manifested. It is believed that this was a minor cult, and largely based around the use of cannabinoid substances.
In order to minimize bloodshed, each of the two tribes would control one half of the government for a period of eight years, and then each would exchange places with great pomp and ceremony. One of the most sacred aspects of this power shift was the symbolic transfer of control of the resources of freedom and national security.
Although today we understand these are complex abstract concepts, the Ancient Muricans believed them to be tangible assets that could be traded, hoarded and allocated at will. Thus each party in charge would be assigned one of these resources with which they were tasked to defend. Each would loudly advocate the primacy of their own resource, only to later recant those statements when the positions were reversed.
By all accounts this led to spirited (but purely symbolic) exchanges between tribes, and may have served as mock combat, in an attempt to prevent the very real violence that simmered beneath the surface of the society, as seen in the art and literature of the time (see Hogarth's study "The Martyrdom of Honey Boo Boo: Child Sacrifice and Class Shaming in Ancient Murica.")
This tradition started after the great Murican National Tragedy of 2001. To commemorate this solemn event, the Security-Freedom Exchange was instituted, with all due ritual.
This ritual took the form of an antiphonal response similar to those in Pre-Schism Catholicism. One side would identify a perceived slight to "Privacy" (a familiar and vital concept to Pretelepathic cultures,) and place the blame for this affront upon the current tribe wielding executive power. The faction charged with the defense of "Freedom" would craft this specific complaint into a mantra for thier followers, while those charged with defending "Security" would prepare a defense, based on whatever threat or villain most dominated the current zeitgeist.
Each side would present their argument with passion and vehemence, while denouncing the response of the other. Nothing actually occurred or changed as a result of these debates, but each felt they had done their part to defend their concept. Then, eight years later, they would completely reverse their attitudes, and take up a new argument, and the cycle continued.
These mantras have been carefully preserved through the ages, and provide us with a fascinating insight into the changing Murican mindset. Here are the tribal litanies from the start of the third millennium (Pre Hitchens Dating,) right up to the dissolution of the union during the bloody holy wars that brought about the second Age of Darkness.
Years: 2000-2008
Reign: George Bush II
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Connecticut/Texas (disputed)
Complaint: "The Patriot Act gives undue powers to the government, allowing them to invade our privacy via warrantless wiretapping and access to library records!"
Response: "We need those powers to fight Al Qaeda and bring Osama Bin Laden to justice!"
Years: 2008-2016
Reign: Barack Obama (first hypermelanine president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Hawaii/Kenya (disputed)
Complaint: "The NSA has been illegally reading our emails and spying on journalists!"
Response: "We need those powers to prevent another attack like the Boston Marathon bombing!
Years: 2016-2024
Reign: Harold Whiteman
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Texas
Complaint: "Public schools now require DNA swabs to receive free or reduced lunches!
Response: "We need those powers to intercept communiques from the Quebec Secessionist Army!"
Years: 2032-2040
Reign: Janice Paulson (first female president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: New York
Complaint: "CIA drones are being used to watch Americans 24/7, and missiles are being deployed for overdue library books!"
Response: "We need those powers to apprehend cyborg soda runners from Mexican corn syrup cartels!"
Years: 2040-2048
Reign: Harold Whiteman II
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Texas
Complaint: "The Mom and Apple Pie Act allows for extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens for misdemeanors and traffic offenses!"
Response: "We need those powers to stop Icelandic ninjagers from entering the country to harvest pituitary glands from our children!"
Years: 2048-2056
Reign: Pedro Goldberg-Morales (first Jewish/Hispanic president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Puerto Rico
Complaint: "Government agents are allowed to review our Facebook posts and tweets for grammar errors!"
Response: "We need those powers to stem the tide of illegally cloned humans being imported as hunting stock!"
Years: 2056-2064
Reign: Harold Whiteman III
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Lunar Base 2 ("New Texas")
Complaint: "Corporations are allowed to trademark our DNA, and charge us for the right to grow replacement organs for transplant!"
Response: "We need those powers because HOLY SHIT, SPIDERS!"
Years: 2064-2072
Reign: John Average Hooman
Tribe: Puppet ruler for Arachnos Collective
Origin: Earth (disputed)
Complaint: None. (All forms of dissent during the occupation were suppressed.)
Years: 2072-2080
Reign: BigDick HaxxorLord6969 (first president elected via internet voting)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Your Mom (disputed)
Complaint: "Nanodrones have been introduced to the water supply allowing instantaneous monitoring of all citizens, internally and externally!"
Response: "We need those powers to root out terrorist cells supporting Team Edward In Exile!"
Years: 2080-2088
Reign: Harold Whiteman I (clone)
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Hydrobase 432 (formerly Texas)
Complaint: "Corporate 'involuntary unpaid internships' are slavery!"
Response: "We need those powers to defend against the robot armies of Carl Blaszkiewicz!" (See files on Carlinian Empire)
Years: 2088-2096
Reign: Brian Robinson/Glen Vazquez (first melded president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Occupied Canadian Territories
Complaint: "The mind probe matrix represents a clear breach of unlawful search and seizure!"
Response: "We need those powers to locate agents of the Martian Ascendancy!"
Years: 2096-2104
Reign: Ronald Reagan (cloned brain mounted on chimp body "Bonzo")
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Dimension 64f
Complaint: "Use of predictive algorithms gives the government unfair pre knowledge of events!"
Response: "Use of predictive algorithms gives the government unfair pre knowledge of events!"
Year 2104
Reign: Will Anderson (first gay president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Vermont Archipelago
*This was the last free election, and Anderson's inauguration sparked the beginning of Culture War I, which lasted nearly fifty years and cost millions of lives. By all accounts, it was the bloodiest, most callous and best decorated conflict in human history, and ushered in the Second Age of Darkness.
One such aspect of the Murican character was the complex economic relationship known as the safety-freedom exchange. We know that the Ancient Murican people enjoyed in currency and commodity trading, both as a central tenet of their religious practices, but also as recreation. But this particular exchange was apparently woven into the political structure, and was a key element of the peaceful transfer of power between regimes.
The Murican political system was a tribal affair, with executive power shared between a sacrificial public figurehead known as a "President," and a council of elders known as "Congress." Each had their power checked by something called "Gridlock," which archaeological evidence suggests was a powerful robotic dinosaur, and only the tribe who could defeat this beast could expect to enact any meaningful changes.
There were two tribes at this time, known as Republicans and Democrats, each represented by a totem animal and color (Recent discoveries form the sunken city of Angeles suggest these tribes may have had their roots in smaller tribes known as "Crips" and "Bloods." Although some have suggested this is merely a coincidence, the similarities in the colors and vehemence inherent in the rivalry offers strong evidence for this theory.)
There is evidence that smaller "third parties" existed at the fringes of this society, eking out a living as hunter gatherers, or serving as a priesthood caste, extolling the masses with promises of a better life in some fictional paradise that never manifested. It is believed that this was a minor cult, and largely based around the use of cannabinoid substances.
In order to minimize bloodshed, each of the two tribes would control one half of the government for a period of eight years, and then each would exchange places with great pomp and ceremony. One of the most sacred aspects of this power shift was the symbolic transfer of control of the resources of freedom and national security.
Although today we understand these are complex abstract concepts, the Ancient Muricans believed them to be tangible assets that could be traded, hoarded and allocated at will. Thus each party in charge would be assigned one of these resources with which they were tasked to defend. Each would loudly advocate the primacy of their own resource, only to later recant those statements when the positions were reversed.
By all accounts this led to spirited (but purely symbolic) exchanges between tribes, and may have served as mock combat, in an attempt to prevent the very real violence that simmered beneath the surface of the society, as seen in the art and literature of the time (see Hogarth's study "The Martyrdom of Honey Boo Boo: Child Sacrifice and Class Shaming in Ancient Murica.")
This tradition started after the great Murican National Tragedy of 2001. To commemorate this solemn event, the Security-Freedom Exchange was instituted, with all due ritual.
This ritual took the form of an antiphonal response similar to those in Pre-Schism Catholicism. One side would identify a perceived slight to "Privacy" (a familiar and vital concept to Pretelepathic cultures,) and place the blame for this affront upon the current tribe wielding executive power. The faction charged with the defense of "Freedom" would craft this specific complaint into a mantra for thier followers, while those charged with defending "Security" would prepare a defense, based on whatever threat or villain most dominated the current zeitgeist.
Each side would present their argument with passion and vehemence, while denouncing the response of the other. Nothing actually occurred or changed as a result of these debates, but each felt they had done their part to defend their concept. Then, eight years later, they would completely reverse their attitudes, and take up a new argument, and the cycle continued.
These mantras have been carefully preserved through the ages, and provide us with a fascinating insight into the changing Murican mindset. Here are the tribal litanies from the start of the third millennium (Pre Hitchens Dating,) right up to the dissolution of the union during the bloody holy wars that brought about the second Age of Darkness.
Years: 2000-2008
Reign: George Bush II
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Connecticut/Texas (disputed)
Complaint: "The Patriot Act gives undue powers to the government, allowing them to invade our privacy via warrantless wiretapping and access to library records!"
Response: "We need those powers to fight Al Qaeda and bring Osama Bin Laden to justice!"
Years: 2008-2016
Reign: Barack Obama (first hypermelanine president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Hawaii/Kenya (disputed)
Complaint: "The NSA has been illegally reading our emails and spying on journalists!"
Response: "We need those powers to prevent another attack like the Boston Marathon bombing!
Years: 2016-2024
Reign: Harold Whiteman
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Texas
Complaint: "Public schools now require DNA swabs to receive free or reduced lunches!
Response: "We need those powers to intercept communiques from the Quebec Secessionist Army!"
Years: 2032-2040
Reign: Janice Paulson (first female president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: New York
Complaint: "CIA drones are being used to watch Americans 24/7, and missiles are being deployed for overdue library books!"
Response: "We need those powers to apprehend cyborg soda runners from Mexican corn syrup cartels!"
Years: 2040-2048
Reign: Harold Whiteman II
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Texas
Complaint: "The Mom and Apple Pie Act allows for extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens for misdemeanors and traffic offenses!"
Response: "We need those powers to stop Icelandic ninjagers from entering the country to harvest pituitary glands from our children!"
Years: 2048-2056
Reign: Pedro Goldberg-Morales (first Jewish/Hispanic president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Puerto Rico
Complaint: "Government agents are allowed to review our Facebook posts and tweets for grammar errors!"
Response: "We need those powers to stem the tide of illegally cloned humans being imported as hunting stock!"
Years: 2056-2064
Reign: Harold Whiteman III
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Lunar Base 2 ("New Texas")
Complaint: "Corporations are allowed to trademark our DNA, and charge us for the right to grow replacement organs for transplant!"
Response: "We need those powers because HOLY SHIT, SPIDERS!"
Years: 2064-2072
Reign: John Average Hooman
Tribe: Puppet ruler for Arachnos Collective
Origin: Earth (disputed)
Complaint: None. (All forms of dissent during the occupation were suppressed.)
Years: 2072-2080
Reign: BigDick HaxxorLord6969 (first president elected via internet voting)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Your Mom (disputed)
Complaint: "Nanodrones have been introduced to the water supply allowing instantaneous monitoring of all citizens, internally and externally!"
Response: "We need those powers to root out terrorist cells supporting Team Edward In Exile!"
Years: 2080-2088
Reign: Harold Whiteman I (clone)
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Hydrobase 432 (formerly Texas)
Complaint: "Corporate 'involuntary unpaid internships' are slavery!"
Response: "We need those powers to defend against the robot armies of Carl Blaszkiewicz!" (See files on Carlinian Empire)
Years: 2088-2096
Reign: Brian Robinson/Glen Vazquez (first melded president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Occupied Canadian Territories
Complaint: "The mind probe matrix represents a clear breach of unlawful search and seizure!"
Response: "We need those powers to locate agents of the Martian Ascendancy!"
Years: 2096-2104
Reign: Ronald Reagan (cloned brain mounted on chimp body "Bonzo")
Tribe: Republican
Origin: Dimension 64f
Complaint: "Use of predictive algorithms gives the government unfair pre knowledge of events!"
Response: "Use of predictive algorithms gives the government unfair pre knowledge of events!"
Year 2104
Reign: Will Anderson (first gay president)
Tribe: Democrat
Origin: Vermont Archipelago
*This was the last free election, and Anderson's inauguration sparked the beginning of Culture War I, which lasted nearly fifty years and cost millions of lives. By all accounts, it was the bloodiest, most callous and best decorated conflict in human history, and ushered in the Second Age of Darkness.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
An Important Lesson About Marketing For My Daughter
Tonight we went to our local Lowe's hardware store to purchase a pressure washer because reasons. While we were there, trapped there by a torrential rainstorm, we looked at a number of other things. I have been looking for an organizer for my new paints. Preferably one that not only worked on the desktop, but could be used to transport my paints to events if necessary.
I need to get rid of all my old Games Workshop pots that are basically polychromatic hockey pucks now, and all my new paints (Reaper Master Series Paints and Vallejo Model Color,) come in tall, skinny dropper bottles (which I love.) So, long story short, I'm looking for a tackle box-style organizer that is tall enough for the new bottles.
We went to the organization aisle, where they keep all the plastic bins and stuff. While there, I saw this on a separate display:
It's a Keter "Cantilever Organizer," which means when it opens, the top layer stays flat (instead of tipping up, causing anything you have stored up there rolling around.) The bottom layer has enough head room for the tall bottles, and the top layer has shallower bins for the few GW paints I still have.
Both layers have removable bins, so you can work with small batches of stuff, or take some out to create a bigger space. I think it's really cool, and it was $14.98. So I put it in the cart.
Now you may have noticed, it is pink. Like, really, really pink. Surely you don't think I looked askance at the color, do you? Not me.
"Does it come in 'Man' color?" is what I asked, only half joking.
Turns out it does not. This item is only available in pink, because it is for... you know. Don't make me say it.
Artists.
Look at the picture on the label.
Crayons, poster paint, oil paints, white glue, sponges, chalk, glass beads, etc. And you know what else has to be in one of those bottles? Glitter. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
But while pink is not my favorite color (it does nothing for my skin tones,) I need the case for my own art supplies, so into the cart it went.
Now, a smart shopper knows to check the different sections of the store, and never just rely on what you find on a display or end cap. So before we left, we headed to the toolbox section to compare with other options.
Most of the toolboxes were not what I needed, as most have a large central bay for tools, which would be no good for organizing miniature paint bottles. But then I saw one that was just what I needed:
Check that out! That little beauty is the Keter "9-3/8-in Black Resin Tool Box." It's got a cantilevered top, so that the stuff you put in the small bins don't roll around when you open it, and the bottom has larger bins. And get this, all the bins are removable! And best of all, it's in my favorite color, black! I have almost everything in black, because it's neutral, it's slimming, and it expresses my faux existential nihilist aesthetic very well. Also, I might be Batman.
But look how manly it is! I mean, it's clearly for men, because it is designed to hold bolts, and wire nuts, and drywall screw mounts, and...are those angled shims in the lower left corner? They look like cosmetic sponges, but anyway...this is for holding hardware. And the most fabulous roll of electrical tape ever!
Nothing...artistic here. So if I buy this manly container, and use it to hold my art supplies, that makes me super frugal and masculine. OBVIOUSLY this is the case for me.
And it was on sale for $24.98, down from $29.98.
This demanded a lesson for my little girl (once again, genderstapo, my little boy is only three and not very bright, so he wouldn't have gotten much out of it, even though he's the one who's going to get screwed by crap like this in the future.)
I pointed out the two cases side by side, and showed her how they were the exact same product, made from the same materials, the same metal latches, and everything. Then I showed her how the pink one was named differently, was shown with art supplies instead of hardware, and was roughly half the price.
I let her puzzle over why that could be.
The reason of course dear readers, is marketing. Not only do you change the name and image to appeal to different genders, but the price point must fit the expectations of the product. Tool boxes are serious business, and people expect to pay within a certain range. But an "art organizer" that is sold in the hardware store needs to be priced to move, as the market there is not as large.
Walk down the street to the craft store and sell the same kit, and it will cost you an extra ten bucks. Shit, put the word "scrapbooking" on it and you're looking at an extra twenty.
I told my little girl about how you can't let the label determine something's value (I keep thinking there's some greater lesson here, but I can't think of it. Oh well, I'm just a "dumb man," what do you expect of me?) and that she needs to look at everything critically when shopping or doing anything else.
By the way, here's how the case is working for me:
I will be doing the old painter's trick of painting a spot on the cap so you can find the colors easy from above (never needed to before now.) And alas, the GW paints have to lay down to fit, but that will be no problem.
I like my pink case, and feel that my masculinity is secure enough to go out carrying my pink cantilevered organizer.
But only after I've decorated it with stickers, and maybe some rhinestones. Do they make Bedazzlers that work on resin?
Very secure.
I need to get rid of all my old Games Workshop pots that are basically polychromatic hockey pucks now, and all my new paints (Reaper Master Series Paints and Vallejo Model Color,) come in tall, skinny dropper bottles (which I love.) So, long story short, I'm looking for a tackle box-style organizer that is tall enough for the new bottles.
We went to the organization aisle, where they keep all the plastic bins and stuff. While there, I saw this on a separate display:
It's a Keter "Cantilever Organizer," which means when it opens, the top layer stays flat (instead of tipping up, causing anything you have stored up there rolling around.) The bottom layer has enough head room for the tall bottles, and the top layer has shallower bins for the few GW paints I still have.
Both layers have removable bins, so you can work with small batches of stuff, or take some out to create a bigger space. I think it's really cool, and it was $14.98. So I put it in the cart.
Now you may have noticed, it is pink. Like, really, really pink. Surely you don't think I looked askance at the color, do you? Not me.
"Does it come in 'Man' color?" is what I asked, only half joking.
Turns out it does not. This item is only available in pink, because it is for... you know. Don't make me say it.
Artists.
Look at the picture on the label.
But while pink is not my favorite color (it does nothing for my skin tones,) I need the case for my own art supplies, so into the cart it went.
Now, a smart shopper knows to check the different sections of the store, and never just rely on what you find on a display or end cap. So before we left, we headed to the toolbox section to compare with other options.
Most of the toolboxes were not what I needed, as most have a large central bay for tools, which would be no good for organizing miniature paint bottles. But then I saw one that was just what I needed:
Check that out! That little beauty is the Keter "9-3/8-in Black Resin Tool Box." It's got a cantilevered top, so that the stuff you put in the small bins don't roll around when you open it, and the bottom has larger bins. And get this, all the bins are removable! And best of all, it's in my favorite color, black! I have almost everything in black, because it's neutral, it's slimming, and it expresses my faux existential nihilist aesthetic very well. Also, I might be Batman.
But look how manly it is! I mean, it's clearly for men, because it is designed to hold bolts, and wire nuts, and drywall screw mounts, and...are those angled shims in the lower left corner? They look like cosmetic sponges, but anyway...this is for holding hardware. And the most fabulous roll of electrical tape ever!
Nothing...artistic here. So if I buy this manly container, and use it to hold my art supplies, that makes me super frugal and masculine. OBVIOUSLY this is the case for me.
And it was on sale for $24.98, down from $29.98.
This demanded a lesson for my little girl (once again, genderstapo, my little boy is only three and not very bright, so he wouldn't have gotten much out of it, even though he's the one who's going to get screwed by crap like this in the future.)
I pointed out the two cases side by side, and showed her how they were the exact same product, made from the same materials, the same metal latches, and everything. Then I showed her how the pink one was named differently, was shown with art supplies instead of hardware, and was roughly half the price.
I let her puzzle over why that could be.
The reason of course dear readers, is marketing. Not only do you change the name and image to appeal to different genders, but the price point must fit the expectations of the product. Tool boxes are serious business, and people expect to pay within a certain range. But an "art organizer" that is sold in the hardware store needs to be priced to move, as the market there is not as large.
Walk down the street to the craft store and sell the same kit, and it will cost you an extra ten bucks. Shit, put the word "scrapbooking" on it and you're looking at an extra twenty.
I told my little girl about how you can't let the label determine something's value (I keep thinking there's some greater lesson here, but I can't think of it. Oh well, I'm just a "dumb man," what do you expect of me?) and that she needs to look at everything critically when shopping or doing anything else.
By the way, here's how the case is working for me:
I will be doing the old painter's trick of painting a spot on the cap so you can find the colors easy from above (never needed to before now.) And alas, the GW paints have to lay down to fit, but that will be no problem.
I like my pink case, and feel that my masculinity is secure enough to go out carrying my pink cantilevered organizer.
But only after I've decorated it with stickers, and maybe some rhinestones. Do they make Bedazzlers that work on resin?
Very secure.
Friday, August 2, 2013
In Defense Of A Wicked Stepmother
Okay, I'm not trying to be cynical here (reformed, remember?) but my wife and I have been showing our daughter all the classic Disney princess movies (calm down anti-genderists, the boy is watching too, but he's too young to really take it all in.)
Currently, we are watching "Cinderella." Now, everyone knows the traditional narrative; sweet, innocent Cinderella, long abused by her wicked stepfamily, is finally given the happiness she deserves by marrying the prince and becoming a princess, fulfilling her destiny. The karmic balance is restored as her years of patient toil and silent suffering are rewarded.
However, that is a decidedly modern interpretation of the story. Remember that this story can be traced to medieval cultures, and it is through the lens of that historical perspective that we must view the story, if we are to judge its characters fairly.
Now I'm sure others have made plenty of comments bashing Cinderella herself, who does exactly one single thing of value, takes one single action on her own initiative to further her goals: telling the birds to go get the dog. Seriously, that's the only idea in the whole film that she comes up with herself, the rest just 'happens' to her. The animals do most of it, and indeed, she is so used to people taking care of her problems (the real ones, not this "oh, I'm too pretty for housework"shit,) that when a mysterious magical woman shows up to solve her issues, she doesn't even question it. Seriously.
But I'm not here to talk about Disney's second whiniest princess. I want to talk about this story from the point of view of the antagonist, the 'wicked' stepmother. If one turns this story around, you have a rather tragic tale of a desperate mother, bound by the limitations of a brutal, misogynistic society, and trying vainly to create a good life for her doomed children. Shall we?
To begin, let's recap the society in which this story takes place. At this time, women have no real position in society. Sure, a queen or other high royalty may have some power of command over their own destiny, but for a woman of lesser birth (like Lady Tremaine, Cinderella's stepmother,) the only way to improve one's lot was through marriage.
Generally speaking (barring a few exceptional cases,) a woman could not purchase property (she could run her family lands, but could not go out and buy her own land, it simply was not done,) she could not start a business (not a respectable and successful one at least,) and even where such things were not specifically outlawed, to do so would be so unconventional as to make one an outcast in polite society.
And since marriage was the only stepping stone for success, making oneself an attractive prospect for marriage had to be the sole priority of every woman.
And her mother.
Lady Tremaine had done the best she could before the story begins. She had married, and had two daughters. She was safe and secure, with a man to provide for them. But then he died, probably leaving them without much in the way of resources. She then remarries to a widower of some wealth. This would have been not only for herself, but for the security and safety of her daughters.
Was she mean to her stepdaughter? No. The story tells us right away that the trouble only began after Cinderella's father passed away. Then she "showed her true colors" and became cold and cruel. Remember that 'cold' part, it's important.
When she marries Cinderella's father, she and her daughters are once again safe. When he dies, he at least leaves behind enough money for them to live comfortably (it is reasonable to conclude that her first husband did not do so.)
But now she is left with her stepdaughter to raise. That she resented Cinderella is directly stated, as is her subsequent treatment of her. But why? We can conjecture all kinds of scenarios around this; that Cinderella was left a huge trust that Lady Tremaine could not touch, or the fact that the father was a little too doting on Cinderella (we are treated to a scene of him giving her a pony, while the other two girls are in the house watching,) or that she was a whiny bitch. Indeed, a character study of Cinderella makes it pretty unrealistic that she wasn't mean to her new stepsisters, who would have still been grieveing for their own father when they moved into the house of this only child who had been so lovingly treated by her father, and who now had to share that love with two other girls her age. But let's stick with what we can see in the film, and what we know about the world in which the characters lived.
When her second husband dies, Lady Tremaine must now raise all three girls. Two of them are her own blood, and the idea that a mother treats children of her own blood different may seem cold to us today (adoption is no big deal these days, with no stigma attached to raising a child not your own,) they lived in a time where bloodline was extremely important to people, which made folks care a lot more for their own DNA's legacy.
This of course is a cornerstone concept of biology, but we will discuss that subject another day when I tackle the root cause of infidelity. That will be fun, won't it?
But I digress- Lady Tremaine now has one job to do: raise those girls to be the most attractive marriage prospects that she possibly can. That means all kinds of training, and the establishment of a suitable dowry. She will have to pay for tutors to teach the girls languages, elocution lessons, all sorts of skills and knowledge that aspiring brides must know to land a rich husband. That shit ain't cheap, yo.
One of the first terrible things the story tells us that Lady Tremaine does is to let the estate fall into disrepair (no man to run the place after all,) because she is supposedly spending all that money on the vain sisters. What is that money going towards? Well they call the girls vain, so we are meant to assume clothes and makeup and such, beautification aids. But I put it to you that this is not the result of the sisters' vanity, it is because of their mother's love.
She wants her little girls (and remember that she is shown being just as stern to them at times as she is to Cinderella,) to have the best in life. And that can only mean landing a rich husband. So she does her best to provide them with the best clothes, the best hair, and the best training she possibly can.
But here's where we get to the most brutal part of the world in which these characters live. In this world, physical beauty is everything. The Prince's father (I can't recall his title,) wants his son to get married, so he plans a ball where he will be forced to see all the eligible girls of the kingdom, so he can fall in love and ask her to marry him that very night. He even describes the process, pointing out that it is nothing more than instant attraction.
And both the Prince and Cinderella buy into this concept (she starts singing "So This is Love" right after seeing him for the first time, remember? No honey, that's not love, it's hormones whisking blood off to the bits that your bathing suit covers and making you all tingly; it's not an emotion, it's basic biological stimulus. Definitely not the basis for lifelong commitment.
But that's the way it is in this world. A man is expected to see a woman and choose her for his mate based on her physical appeal. It may strike our enlightened, 21st century sensibilities as barbaric, but like it or not, it is expected, it is normal, and it is the way things are done.
And Lady Tremaine knows this. So she has these two exquisitely trained and properly raised daughters that she needs to prepare for marriage.
And they are ugly.
On this point, all versions are in accord; that the two stepsisters are not physically appealing whatsoever. If you looked at a group shot of all the characters, you would call Lady Tremaine "the wicked stepmother." If you saw the two girls, what would you refer to them as?
Right. The ugly stepsisters. That is their defining characteristic. Even though they are shown acting just as wicked as their mother in the film, we don't call them wicked, we remember the ugly. Nice.
Those girls are doomed. They got giant feet, weak chins, and just all around butt-faced monkey looks. It is sad to say it, but their prospects at marriage are very poor. Because happily ever afters are only for pretty girls.
Like frigging Cinderella.
Cinderella is beautiful. Not because she did anything special, she's just born that way (it's never Maybeline.) The composition of her skull was such that her facial features displayed uncommon symmetry. And of course she has blue eyes and golden hair that just behaves perfectly. Bitch.
Cinderella has all the features that money can't buy, and which guarantee her a good chance at love and success in this world. She's pretty, and that is all she ever needs.
"Ah-ha!" you think, "so the stepmother and stepsisters are jealous of Cinderella's beauty!" Yes of course, that is perfectly natural. And for Drizella and Anastasia, that's really all the explanation one need consider. But I'm not talking about them, I'm looking at their mom. And she isn't merely jealous of Cinderella, she sees her for what she really is.
A threat.
In the animal kingdom, just like our own human experience, parents want to protect their children, not just from immediate danger, but by making sure they have the best chance to survive. Plenty of animals work together in collective groups, but if there is only enough food to support one kid, animals work pretty hard to make sure it's their own. Wouldn't you?
Remember that this world requires young women to compete for the best husband, and the only quality that truly matters is beauty. If she brings all three girls to all the functions where one meets prospective suitors, what's going to happen? Blondie McPrettyface is going to take the best husband for herself. What's worse, after the first debutante ball, when everyone sees the three girls together, they will be permanently labelled "Cinderella's ugly stepsisters." Try shaking off that nickname.
Cinderella doesn't need help, she has hotness for that. But those other two (her own blood, mind you,) are doomed if Cinderella shows her perfectly framed face on the social scene.
So what is a loving, worried, calculating mother to do? Keep the girl at home. Give her plenty of work to do around the house (had to let the servants go to pay for dowries and elocution lessons.) Don't let her wear pretty dresses and go out to the local fair.
Keep her neutralized as a threat to her own daughters. From Lady Tremaine's point of view, Fate has been especially cruel to her and her children, saddling them with this extrafamiliar invader that drains resources and reduces the biological offspring's ability to compete and survive to pass on their genetic traits (ugliness, being amongst them unfortunately.) And that is not an unknown phenomenon in nature.
Cinderella is a cuckoo.
She is the egg from another bird, placed in the nest to parasitize the family, taking away resources and evicting the other chicks from the nest.
Much has been made of Lady Tremaine's coldness and cruelty. She pops up on many "most evil villains ever" list, usually noting "she is cruel to Cinderella for no reason, there is no direct profit to herself." But they miss the point. She is that fiercest of females; a mother protecting her children from harm.
Wicked? Maybe. But how hard would your mom fight for you? Or you for your own child? We may look at it differently today, in our soft, baby-proofed world of gold stars and self esteem and child-proofed aspirin bottles, but human nature was a lot more red in tooth and claw back then.
And just in case you think all this is mere speculation, consider this: all that talk of Cinderella one day outcompeting the sisters? What happened the one single time she was let out of the house with her hair and nails did?
Happily fucking ever after, that's what.
Oh and Belle was the first.
Currently, we are watching "Cinderella." Now, everyone knows the traditional narrative; sweet, innocent Cinderella, long abused by her wicked stepfamily, is finally given the happiness she deserves by marrying the prince and becoming a princess, fulfilling her destiny. The karmic balance is restored as her years of patient toil and silent suffering are rewarded.
However, that is a decidedly modern interpretation of the story. Remember that this story can be traced to medieval cultures, and it is through the lens of that historical perspective that we must view the story, if we are to judge its characters fairly.
Now I'm sure others have made plenty of comments bashing Cinderella herself, who does exactly one single thing of value, takes one single action on her own initiative to further her goals: telling the birds to go get the dog. Seriously, that's the only idea in the whole film that she comes up with herself, the rest just 'happens' to her. The animals do most of it, and indeed, she is so used to people taking care of her problems (the real ones, not this "oh, I'm too pretty for housework"shit,) that when a mysterious magical woman shows up to solve her issues, she doesn't even question it. Seriously.
But I'm not here to talk about Disney's second whiniest princess. I want to talk about this story from the point of view of the antagonist, the 'wicked' stepmother. If one turns this story around, you have a rather tragic tale of a desperate mother, bound by the limitations of a brutal, misogynistic society, and trying vainly to create a good life for her doomed children. Shall we?
To begin, let's recap the society in which this story takes place. At this time, women have no real position in society. Sure, a queen or other high royalty may have some power of command over their own destiny, but for a woman of lesser birth (like Lady Tremaine, Cinderella's stepmother,) the only way to improve one's lot was through marriage.
Generally speaking (barring a few exceptional cases,) a woman could not purchase property (she could run her family lands, but could not go out and buy her own land, it simply was not done,) she could not start a business (not a respectable and successful one at least,) and even where such things were not specifically outlawed, to do so would be so unconventional as to make one an outcast in polite society.
And since marriage was the only stepping stone for success, making oneself an attractive prospect for marriage had to be the sole priority of every woman.
And her mother.
Lady Tremaine had done the best she could before the story begins. She had married, and had two daughters. She was safe and secure, with a man to provide for them. But then he died, probably leaving them without much in the way of resources. She then remarries to a widower of some wealth. This would have been not only for herself, but for the security and safety of her daughters.
Was she mean to her stepdaughter? No. The story tells us right away that the trouble only began after Cinderella's father passed away. Then she "showed her true colors" and became cold and cruel. Remember that 'cold' part, it's important.
When she marries Cinderella's father, she and her daughters are once again safe. When he dies, he at least leaves behind enough money for them to live comfortably (it is reasonable to conclude that her first husband did not do so.)
But now she is left with her stepdaughter to raise. That she resented Cinderella is directly stated, as is her subsequent treatment of her. But why? We can conjecture all kinds of scenarios around this; that Cinderella was left a huge trust that Lady Tremaine could not touch, or the fact that the father was a little too doting on Cinderella (we are treated to a scene of him giving her a pony, while the other two girls are in the house watching,) or that she was a whiny bitch. Indeed, a character study of Cinderella makes it pretty unrealistic that she wasn't mean to her new stepsisters, who would have still been grieveing for their own father when they moved into the house of this only child who had been so lovingly treated by her father, and who now had to share that love with two other girls her age. But let's stick with what we can see in the film, and what we know about the world in which the characters lived.
When her second husband dies, Lady Tremaine must now raise all three girls. Two of them are her own blood, and the idea that a mother treats children of her own blood different may seem cold to us today (adoption is no big deal these days, with no stigma attached to raising a child not your own,) they lived in a time where bloodline was extremely important to people, which made folks care a lot more for their own DNA's legacy.
This of course is a cornerstone concept of biology, but we will discuss that subject another day when I tackle the root cause of infidelity. That will be fun, won't it?
But I digress- Lady Tremaine now has one job to do: raise those girls to be the most attractive marriage prospects that she possibly can. That means all kinds of training, and the establishment of a suitable dowry. She will have to pay for tutors to teach the girls languages, elocution lessons, all sorts of skills and knowledge that aspiring brides must know to land a rich husband. That shit ain't cheap, yo.
One of the first terrible things the story tells us that Lady Tremaine does is to let the estate fall into disrepair (no man to run the place after all,) because she is supposedly spending all that money on the vain sisters. What is that money going towards? Well they call the girls vain, so we are meant to assume clothes and makeup and such, beautification aids. But I put it to you that this is not the result of the sisters' vanity, it is because of their mother's love.
She wants her little girls (and remember that she is shown being just as stern to them at times as she is to Cinderella,) to have the best in life. And that can only mean landing a rich husband. So she does her best to provide them with the best clothes, the best hair, and the best training she possibly can.
But here's where we get to the most brutal part of the world in which these characters live. In this world, physical beauty is everything. The Prince's father (I can't recall his title,) wants his son to get married, so he plans a ball where he will be forced to see all the eligible girls of the kingdom, so he can fall in love and ask her to marry him that very night. He even describes the process, pointing out that it is nothing more than instant attraction.
And both the Prince and Cinderella buy into this concept (she starts singing "So This is Love" right after seeing him for the first time, remember? No honey, that's not love, it's hormones whisking blood off to the bits that your bathing suit covers and making you all tingly; it's not an emotion, it's basic biological stimulus. Definitely not the basis for lifelong commitment.
But that's the way it is in this world. A man is expected to see a woman and choose her for his mate based on her physical appeal. It may strike our enlightened, 21st century sensibilities as barbaric, but like it or not, it is expected, it is normal, and it is the way things are done.
And Lady Tremaine knows this. So she has these two exquisitely trained and properly raised daughters that she needs to prepare for marriage.
And they are ugly.
On this point, all versions are in accord; that the two stepsisters are not physically appealing whatsoever. If you looked at a group shot of all the characters, you would call Lady Tremaine "the wicked stepmother." If you saw the two girls, what would you refer to them as?
Right. The ugly stepsisters. That is their defining characteristic. Even though they are shown acting just as wicked as their mother in the film, we don't call them wicked, we remember the ugly. Nice.
Those girls are doomed. They got giant feet, weak chins, and just all around butt-faced monkey looks. It is sad to say it, but their prospects at marriage are very poor. Because happily ever afters are only for pretty girls.
Like frigging Cinderella.
Cinderella is beautiful. Not because she did anything special, she's just born that way (it's never Maybeline.) The composition of her skull was such that her facial features displayed uncommon symmetry. And of course she has blue eyes and golden hair that just behaves perfectly. Bitch.
Cinderella has all the features that money can't buy, and which guarantee her a good chance at love and success in this world. She's pretty, and that is all she ever needs.
"Ah-ha!" you think, "so the stepmother and stepsisters are jealous of Cinderella's beauty!" Yes of course, that is perfectly natural. And for Drizella and Anastasia, that's really all the explanation one need consider. But I'm not talking about them, I'm looking at their mom. And she isn't merely jealous of Cinderella, she sees her for what she really is.
A threat.
In the animal kingdom, just like our own human experience, parents want to protect their children, not just from immediate danger, but by making sure they have the best chance to survive. Plenty of animals work together in collective groups, but if there is only enough food to support one kid, animals work pretty hard to make sure it's their own. Wouldn't you?
Remember that this world requires young women to compete for the best husband, and the only quality that truly matters is beauty. If she brings all three girls to all the functions where one meets prospective suitors, what's going to happen? Blondie McPrettyface is going to take the best husband for herself. What's worse, after the first debutante ball, when everyone sees the three girls together, they will be permanently labelled "Cinderella's ugly stepsisters." Try shaking off that nickname.
Cinderella doesn't need help, she has hotness for that. But those other two (her own blood, mind you,) are doomed if Cinderella shows her perfectly framed face on the social scene.
So what is a loving, worried, calculating mother to do? Keep the girl at home. Give her plenty of work to do around the house (had to let the servants go to pay for dowries and elocution lessons.) Don't let her wear pretty dresses and go out to the local fair.
Keep her neutralized as a threat to her own daughters. From Lady Tremaine's point of view, Fate has been especially cruel to her and her children, saddling them with this extrafamiliar invader that drains resources and reduces the biological offspring's ability to compete and survive to pass on their genetic traits (ugliness, being amongst them unfortunately.) And that is not an unknown phenomenon in nature.
Cinderella is a cuckoo.
She is the egg from another bird, placed in the nest to parasitize the family, taking away resources and evicting the other chicks from the nest.
Much has been made of Lady Tremaine's coldness and cruelty. She pops up on many "most evil villains ever" list, usually noting "she is cruel to Cinderella for no reason, there is no direct profit to herself." But they miss the point. She is that fiercest of females; a mother protecting her children from harm.
Wicked? Maybe. But how hard would your mom fight for you? Or you for your own child? We may look at it differently today, in our soft, baby-proofed world of gold stars and self esteem and child-proofed aspirin bottles, but human nature was a lot more red in tooth and claw back then.
And just in case you think all this is mere speculation, consider this: all that talk of Cinderella one day outcompeting the sisters? What happened the one single time she was let out of the house with her hair and nails did?
Happily fucking ever after, that's what.
Oh and Belle was the first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)