One of the bigger controversies of 80's films is Steven Spielberg's decision to replace guns with walkie-talkies in the DVD version of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Remember that? Spielberg made a pretty little speech about how he felt the guns were 'too scary' for youngsters and he felt it was wrong to depict them in the movie.
Happily, Spielberg has seen the light, and regrets that decision. The guns will be back for the Blu-Ray release of the film.
That didn't stop me from thinking, though, as I listened to some E.T. soundtrack music while pinning and cutting a new dress on the dining room table. (Yes, I am that weird.) Spielberg was responding to a lot of criticism he received about that part of the movie. Apparently, there are many parents who believe that showing guns in a children's movie is just too scary. I have to wonder about their priorities. The scariest thing in that movie, for the children, has nothing to do with weapons or aliens.
Early in the movie, we are introduced to a family in crisis. The mother is obviously overtired and has little control over her kids. There is no sign of a father. We soon find out why, when the little one blurts out that "Daddy is with Sally in Mexico." From the way her older brothers hush her up, and her mother's shattered poise, it was obvious that only one member of the family did not know. The theme emerges a few more times. The boys are very obviously keeping important problems from their mother to spare her feelings and keep from burdening her further.
I was about eight years' old when the movie really hit the market and started being shown and reshown everywhere. I saw it at friends' houses, with that familiar green thing on the VHS tape making it easy to pick out from the others. I saw it at school for an 'afternoon treat' during a Christmas party. I saw it in a summertime drive-in theater. Right around that time, my closest neighborhood friend's parents got a divorce. It was like that in the mid-80's. You were going along your merry way and suddenly a friend, a neighbor, maybe even your own mom and dad were getting a divorce. In a way, it was like a battlefield. You never knew which of your fellow soldiers would fall next.
Spielberg chose to remove those guns from the DVD edition of the movie. Do I wish he had removed the parental abandonment angle from the movie? After all, in other famous kid movies, like Iron Giant and Toy Story, the missing father is barely alluded to, and his method of disappearance is never explained. No, I wouldn't want it removed. It is one of the major reasons, perhaps even stronger than the alien himself, this became such an iconic and important movies of the '80's. It dared to do what so many movies do not, and show all of us just how badly it hurts a family when "Daddy is in Mexico with Sally".
In this day and age, divorce is no longer a new and strange phenomenon. Our children are growing up with peers who never had a father, whose mothers never even married the guy, and they are being taught that this is fairly normal and no big deal. On top of that, we have seen all sorts of new gun legislation and attempts at gun legislation, enforcing and reinforcing the notion that guns are just too scary for children. Fatherlessness, though, that's just no big deal...
The idea of facing an adversary bearing weapons is practically second-nature to these kids. The guns aren't ever even pointed at them. Not a single shot is fired. What scares them is the lack of a parent, or the fear that, at any time, one of their parents may simply walk away... and go to Mexico with Sally.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Illegal Immigration and Adverse Possession
I've heard this argument before, by people who are discussing the problems inherent in illegal immigration and amnesty. "It's as if they just walk into your house and say, 'I live here now; feed me!'" I'm not sure how it happened, but that argument developed in my brain until it became a possible solution for the problem we are currently facing: what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are already here?
Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.
This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.
On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.
Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.
According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.
I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.
I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.
As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.
I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.
Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.
This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.
On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.
Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.
According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.
I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.
I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.
As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.
I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Law that Must Not Be Named
I noticed an interesting trend today. I've been hearing it for several months now, without really thinking about it. Today, however, it happened twice in a row, within less than a half hour, from two different people, and I found it rather disturbing. Note: I live in a state full of Independents, but most of them vote Democrat most of the time. Technically I live in a "blue state", though that doesn't quite describe the situation.
In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.
"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.
My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."
What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."
She deferred.
Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.
A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?
This is the United States!
What's going on here?
In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.
"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.
My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."
What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."
She deferred.
Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.
A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?
This is the United States!
What's going on here?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Elliot Rodger and the Willing Women
A few days ago, an angry, bitter, deranged young man who had been shuttled back and forth between two broken homes for much of his formative years enacted the ultimate act of revenge upon the people he had come to blame for his misfortunes. He killed both men and women by stabbing, shooting, and using a motor vehicle, thus making the usual blame-guns narrative a little more difficult to sustain than usual.
Various people have blamed various things. One article blamed his parents for divorcing (while making it clear that he is ultimately at fault for his own actions). Another blamed the video games into which he sought solace. Yet others have claimed that the girls who shunned him were at fault for refusing to have sex with him. They depict these girls, as he did, as bullies who tease certain types of young men by dressing sexily and then having sex with different young men instead.
I'm not going to blame the girls. That's silly. I'm not really 'blaming' anybody but him, in the end. He had a problem and he went off. It happens occasionally, even in the best society. If it hadn't been the girls, he would have found something else. However, I do want to discuss something that this whole situation has uncovered, a profound change in society that I see as a larger problem that daily causes its own griefs and tragedies, never covered on the news. The crux of the statement just happens to be the very point of Elliot Rodger's manifesto: He felt that it was the women's job to seek him out for sex, the way they had been seeking out other men for sex, thus their refusal was a personal slight.
When did our society change so profoundly?
Before Modern Feminism, the man's job was to pursue the woman, and the woman's job was to not make his task easy. I am not talking about flirting with him, making promises only to withdraw them, teasing him for amusement. Her job was to rebuff him unless he met a set of standards that were hardly arbitrary: keep himself clean, show respect for her, and ensure that he had the ability to provide for her should she make herself vulnerable through pregnancy. Then as now, she decided whether he was worthy. Then, unlike now, she required him to commit to her exclusively, first.
"What is the position of women in SNCC? The position of women in SNCC is prone." That quip, made by 1960's activist Stokely Carmichael, seems to describe the position of women in this new liberal feminist 'paradise'. Around the same time, liberal feminist groups worked out the slogan "Women Say Yes to Men Who Say No", which basically promised free sex to men who did not join the military to fight in the Vietnam War. More recently, "Rock the Vote" encouraged women to offer sex only to men who supported Obamacare. Imagine the irony of a bunch of "liberated" women trading sexual favors in return for having someone else buy their hormonally-based contraception.
Now as I said above, Elliot Rodger had problems, and he would have fixated on something. I do have to ask, however, if those women did not grow up in a society that expected them to seek out men and have sex with them while teasing the others with their partly-clothed bodies, would he have developed the belief that it was their job to have sex with him?
Various people have blamed various things. One article blamed his parents for divorcing (while making it clear that he is ultimately at fault for his own actions). Another blamed the video games into which he sought solace. Yet others have claimed that the girls who shunned him were at fault for refusing to have sex with him. They depict these girls, as he did, as bullies who tease certain types of young men by dressing sexily and then having sex with different young men instead.
I'm not going to blame the girls. That's silly. I'm not really 'blaming' anybody but him, in the end. He had a problem and he went off. It happens occasionally, even in the best society. If it hadn't been the girls, he would have found something else. However, I do want to discuss something that this whole situation has uncovered, a profound change in society that I see as a larger problem that daily causes its own griefs and tragedies, never covered on the news. The crux of the statement just happens to be the very point of Elliot Rodger's manifesto: He felt that it was the women's job to seek him out for sex, the way they had been seeking out other men for sex, thus their refusal was a personal slight.
When did our society change so profoundly?
Before Modern Feminism, the man's job was to pursue the woman, and the woman's job was to not make his task easy. I am not talking about flirting with him, making promises only to withdraw them, teasing him for amusement. Her job was to rebuff him unless he met a set of standards that were hardly arbitrary: keep himself clean, show respect for her, and ensure that he had the ability to provide for her should she make herself vulnerable through pregnancy. Then as now, she decided whether he was worthy. Then, unlike now, she required him to commit to her exclusively, first.
"What is the position of women in SNCC? The position of women in SNCC is prone." That quip, made by 1960's activist Stokely Carmichael, seems to describe the position of women in this new liberal feminist 'paradise'. Around the same time, liberal feminist groups worked out the slogan "Women Say Yes to Men Who Say No", which basically promised free sex to men who did not join the military to fight in the Vietnam War. More recently, "Rock the Vote" encouraged women to offer sex only to men who supported Obamacare. Imagine the irony of a bunch of "liberated" women trading sexual favors in return for having someone else buy their hormonally-based contraception.
Now as I said above, Elliot Rodger had problems, and he would have fixated on something. I do have to ask, however, if those women did not grow up in a society that expected them to seek out men and have sex with them while teasing the others with their partly-clothed bodies, would he have developed the belief that it was their job to have sex with him?
Friday, May 23, 2014
New Chapter on Harry Potter Fanfiction
Harry Potter fanfiction "Song of the Hat" chapter 11 is now up.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/1/The-Song-of-the-Hat
In which our main character, Drucilla Bulstrode, finds a quite unlikely (but quite sensible) mentor.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/1/The-Song-of-the-Hat
In which our main character, Drucilla Bulstrode, finds a quite unlikely (but quite sensible) mentor.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
New Chapter on the Harry Potter Fanfiction
The weather has been gorgeous lately. We've had sun and temperatures in the seventies with light to moderate breezes. Naturally, I've been spending my time outside with the kids, and not writing on anything.
I did, however, sign up for a course on writing children's books. We'll see how that goes. More on that later.
I also updated my Harry Potter fanfiction, "Song of the Hat". You can find it here:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/10/The-Song-of-the-Hat
Going to bed now. I'll say more another day.
I did, however, sign up for a course on writing children's books. We'll see how that goes. More on that later.
I also updated my Harry Potter fanfiction, "Song of the Hat". You can find it here:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/10/The-Song-of-the-Hat
Going to bed now. I'll say more another day.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Spontaneous Storytelling for Morality
This morning, I looked around at the general mess left from yesterday's birthday party. I started loading dishes into the dish drainer as my eldest finished his breakfast. Then I told him to clean up the dining and living room.
Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"
I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...
Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)
The skill is definitely strong in my line.
"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.
"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.
"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"
Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.
"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"
A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.
"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."
Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"
I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...
Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)
The skill is definitely strong in my line.
"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.
"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.
"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"
Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.
"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"
A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.
"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)