Next year's party

Happy Halloween!

I am not really doing a lot for it this year. 

There is some themed reading, but I am not visiting a lot of attractions, or dressing up, or carving pumpkins. I am not even doing that many Halloween songs, though there will be more about that Friday.

That's not all just being tired and poor; some of it was the sabbatical travel, which meant having less time.

However, we did still do our traditional family viewing: The 'burbs; It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown; Garfield's Halloween Adventure, and (of course) The Halloween that Almost Wasn't:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316318/

This was a television movie from 1979 with Judd Hirsch as Dracula and Mariette Hartley as the Witch.

I am pretty sure that it aired on the Disney channel in the early '80s, and that's where we saw it. The point is that with possibly only one viewing at the time, this eminently quotable movie entered the minds and hearts of my sisters and I, and we love it!

It was not easy to find, but we eventually got a DVD copy. It is under the alternative title that is much less representative: The Night Dracula Saved the World. (The world is never in danger -- just Halloween -- and that is plenty compelling.)

Yes, the movie is silly and cheesy and for kids and all of those things, but we find it incredibly fun. Is it just because we saw it at the right age and time? Because I know a lot of people are into Halloweentown and Hocus Pocus and we are not them. 

There isn't any easy way of knowing if it's just us, because no one we have mentioned it to has seen the movie. 

Next year there is going to be a viewing.

If no one else gets it, the movie is half an hour and they will survive (though my respect for their taste my take a hit).

If others are into it, hurrah! We will have spread the love.

Obviously that is almost a year away, so this is not even at the save-the-date stage, but if you are interested, it's not too early to let me know.

And if you have seen it, leave a comment!

TERF Month

I had been thinking of this section of the reading as TERF month and counter-programming, except that seems to focus on the worst part of it. Splitting it up into the most logical division, there are two consecutive weeks of it that are frustrating. 

Even the terminology is frustrating: I am not sure that and of the authors involved are radical feminists by the most strict definition. For one definition I read, it seems like a Radical Feminist should not even be able to be Trans-Exclusive. Perhaps it was that conflict that led to the TERF acronym.

Probably a better overall term is transphobe.

Regardless, as transphobes became more aggressive over the past few years, I would find out that the authors of various books that I intended to read were transphobic. That made me more reluctant to read the books, but I did not feel quite right letting them go either. 

There were a total of five books that were in this category. I ended up (with some inspiration that I will go into later) deciding to put them together with some other books that were more pro-transgender in an attempt to maintain balance.

That was the counter-programming, and it ended up exceeding expectations. I started out with two books in mind and found some really strong additions. That number is at more like 11 now, though there are some books that it could be questionable to count... we'll go over all of that.

For this post, here are three books by authors that appear to be transphobic:

Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Pérez

We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens: Womanist Prose by Alice Walker

They are really good, each in their own individual way.

Invisible Women aggregates important patterns in bias that relate to health and safety and the overall well-being of not just women but society in general.

We Should All Be Feminists is brief but covers some important ground in terms of how so many times people try to define feminism into something different, probably because it is too hard and ugly to fight what feminism actually is.

In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens has a quote I saved that seems to relate to my life now. That probably makes it the one that touched me the most, though as a collection of essays the impact of each individual one varied. However, just the reminder that there was a time, even in my lifetime (though early) that Zora Neale Hurston was practically unknown, and Their Eyes Were Watching God was not even in print... there has been progress. Alice Walker is a part of that progress and it matters.

I just also wish they would get over their prejudices. 

I understand them to some extent; in many ways they are reflecting society. 

I can also imagine that for Criado Pérez -- where so much of her focus relates to general differences between male and female bodies -- that I suppose it could lead to being more gender-essentialist. Looking a bit deeper, though, those standards surely do not fit all male bodies. We can open up more in general, considering other differences without losing sight of gender bias. 

I believe we can do multiple things. 

That leaves this remaining frustration; why can't you be better? 

Which is a fair question for anyone. However, when you have managed to see the problems with gender bias, and often also racial and class bias, anti-immigrant bias... you've come so far!

Please let's work on this next step.

Focus

I wrote For now, last Tuesday's post, the night before. 

I usually try to write ahead anyway; I believe it increases the quality and I know it decreases the stress. My extra motivation was that I had an early morning doctor's appointment Tuesday, which was going to make the morning hectic.

I have been doing appointments early when possible because it is too stressful worrying about being able to get the time off after making the appointment, or scheduling the time off first and then not getting the appointment. I start at 9:30, so if I can drag myself in somewhere between 7:15 to 7:45, I can be done in time for work. 

I never love going to the doctor, but I was kind of dreading it more because my most recent A1c was not as good as I had been hoping. I had been doing pretty well, but when things went spiraling out of control in June/July, it threw my sleep off pretty badly. 

The most important variables for my blood sugar (assuming the medication is where it should be) are my water consumption and the amount of sleep I am getting; that's where changes make the most difference.

I may have written this already, but I had been doing pretty well getting to bed around 11:30. My sense was that if I could start getting to bed at 10:30, I would really have something. Unfortunately, my natural inclination is to be a night owl. It had taken effort to get to where 11:30 was regular, and I was going to put in more effort to get to 10:30.

Then came the stressful phone calls and the hospital trips and waiting for updates. 

I lost a lot of ground.

Even when that situation had stabilized (an overly optimistic term), I had not.

Oddly, no matter how much I berate myself for staying up late -- kind of worrying/kind of vegetating, and really quite pointless -- it does not get me into bed any faster.

I had started getting back on track, averaging 11:38 PM. My blood sugar scores were getting back into range, but I was still not happy.

As we were discussing it, I found myself telling the doctor that if I get my sleep under control over these next few months, I'll be set for life.

I had not thought of it that way before, but yes, if I can make it through open enrollment and garnished wages and holidays and my mother's decline and so much that I want to do in so little time... if over the course of that I can get on track where I am actually making myself/allowing myself to/managing my life so I can get enough sleep...

I can probably do it under any circumstance that comes along.

I feel like I need to do this. Maybe that's why.

Related posts:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/07/please-excuse-gina-for-not-writing.html

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-new-stress.html

Classic Children's Books of Queer Representation

Next Friday I will post about the most recently completed reading "month". 

As I was starting it, it occurred to me that I should check out some kind of related books that had been quite notorious in their time.

Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite (1990)

Heather Has Two Mommies by Lesléa Newman, illustrated by Diane Souza (1989)

And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, illustrated by Henry Cole (2005)

I would say they are all very sweet and simple books with no reason to object, except that decades later people are still trying to ban books and preventing even the utterance of the word "gay".

(One note: the first edition of Heather Has Two Mommies references artificial insemination -- which did draw some objections -- but it was later removed and not in the edition I read.)

For my personal opinions, I like the artwork in Daddy's Roommate more that in Heather Has Two Mommies, but Heather Has Two Mommies is more broadly representative. When her classmates talk about their families, there are multiple different configurations, not only of gender and race but there is even some disability representation.

(And oddly, but it also seems appropriate, both of these books seem to be set in Boston.)

Newman wrote her book after being asked by some lesbian parents who did not see themselves anywhere. That may have caused her to approach it differently.  

Personally my favorite was And Tango Makes Three. I worry that is just so typical of a straight person, but I found the backstory really interesting and I love penguins.

I did try and find a little about the controversies at the time, though Wikipedia has some conflicting reports. 

On one page it talks about the library in Wasilla, Alaska refusing to shelve the books, but then in another it was that they did shelve the books, but councilwoman Sarah Palin objected and fired the librarian, who was rehired after an outcry. 

I am more interested in two other criticisms, both from the page on Heather Has Two Mommies. 

One was a concern that schools should not celebrate one type of family structure over another. The book is very clear that all families are valid, and includes some with straight, married, parents. I feel that is very much a case of reinterpreting equal rights as special rights. Mentioning is not automatically promotion, and certainly not automatically a competition either.

The other was a little more thoughtful, but still had some really wrong points.

One complains that the book is more about the kids at the preschool and Heather's relationship with her class, and that by showing Heather's family as equivalent to heterosexual families, it "dequeers" them. That includes a complaint about Heather being sad about not having a daddy, when some of the other kids do, because that makes it a bad thing. 

While this day of class is clearly the first time Heather realizes her family is not identical to all others, that would be an actual milestone. Then each child draws a picture of their own family, in all their diversity, and the teacher confirms that all of these structures are valid. 

Let me reference Sarah Palin again. When she was banning books and firing librarians, a fellow councilwoman asked her if she had read the book:

"I don't need to read that stuff."

I bet she says that a lot. Regardless, some of these criticisms do make you wonder if the critics really read the book, or just reacted to it. They seem to be missing the point.

There is another point, though.

A child learning that other family structures exist, wondering about it -- perhaps with strong emotions since they are a child -- and then reconciling with that, as well as a book that allows other children to understand that they will meet people with different kinds of families, and that's okay... that book fills a definite, necessary role.

It is not the only possible role. 

It was a reasonable one for Newman to write after being asked, but no one book can fill all needs, and it's great that there are lots of different books.

It is true that back then there was not a lot to choose from, but they filled a role. 

There was an episode of Modern Family where Mitchell has a story for Lily about her adoption. He and Cam briefly think about trying to get it published, for representation, but at the bookstore they find many books about gay parents, gay adoption, gay international adoption... That was 2011.

Things have gotten better. 

There are still people who find it a threat if someone different from them is called valid.

We need to stay on top of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy%27s_Roommate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Has_Two_Mommies

For now

When I posted "A Cheerful Receiver" there was a bigger question behind it. I was hinting at it, but I hadn't resolved it over the following week. "Text-cards" is something I'd been thinking about, and it relates, but it was also a punt because I didn't know what I wanted to say.

It appears that it is not time for the answer. 

Going back to those issues with receiving gifts and even asking for fair compensation... I had not been able to identify whether that is pride or unworthiness or other factors. 

The question came up -- and a conversation with a friend was again critical -- if I might not be blocking some financial success. 

To the extent that sounds like power-of-postive-thinking/the-secret/law-of-attraction, I have a certain amount of skepticism. Yes, I have observed self-sabotage and that can be a real thing, but I am also aware that especially in the realm of economics, there are factors that a positive mindset would not fix. There are so many people one missed paycheck away from disaster, not to mention all those who have actually been hit by the disaster, and saying they just aren't trying hard enough or being confident enough gets me kind of punchy.

My firmly believing that does not rule out that I might not be serving my own interests either. 

One thought that was really clear was that it is not good enough for only my problems to be solved. Okay. If I am saying that I can't have some financial security until everyone else does, though, that is almost certainly not practical.

The unanswered question is what can it be right for me to hope for?

It was bugging me that I couldn't figure it out.

Here's the other thing that I knew, though: I need to go through this open enrollment.

Open enrollment is roughly October through December when people on Medicare plans can change for the upcoming year. Calls get really busy. Not only is it hard to stay caught up with work, but I also can't just snap out of it at the end of a shift, so it affects my time off work as well.

I really didn't want to go through it again.

I was considering other possibilities, and none of them were right. I feel I need to do this.

I don't think I will know my next step until after. 

I do have lots of things that I need to read and think about, and my brain will be worked harder so I will need to show myself some grace over the next three months.

I do feel that need to reach out to friends more, and also to be more aware of how I am taking care of my body (see if I can get through it without my shoulder seizing up again). 

I need to find ways to feel like I am contributing and doing some good, without a lot of time and money..

It is quite possible that somewhere in here, my mother will die. 

It's a lot, but it feels necessary.

Good thing I'm stubborn when I'm committed.

Barney Miller: The Election

I was not going to write about this one.

Episode 5 of Season 3, "The Election" is set on Election Day 1976, when Americans chose Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford. The episode aired (and was filmed) before the election, so the results were unknown. 

They focus instead on voting. 

One shoplifter still needs to get to the polls. He slips out of custody from the voting booth, but takes that time to pay for the stolen items before returning himself to the precinct. 

Wojo has proudly voted, and wants to know how others are voting. He is unable to get a satisfactory answer. Harris does admit to being a Republican, though he does not specify support for Ford. Dietrich does not discuss politics, Yemana is regarding the election mainly in terms of bets placed, and the secrecy of the ballot -- and a probable desire to avoid influencing the men he leads -- keeps Barney from being willing to answer.

Barney also acknowledges there are other races, though most people are focusing on the presidential one.

Luger is focusing on a local race, encouraging others to vote for the candidate he knows, a name familiar to the people he talks to for some corruption allegations while over sanitation.

I am fine with their desire to not commit further. It would be reasonable to guard against exerting undue influence. It also avoids alienating viewers who disagree, and having fictional characters back a real candidate with a chance of losing.

My issue is with the way they explored voting in the other plot.

A call comes into the precinct because a man was hit in the head with a toilet seat that appeared to have come from a third floor window. It had "HELP" written on it.

The seat was thrown by Edna Relkie (Brett Somers), whose husband locked her in the bathroom to prevent her from voting. 

The detectives take it very seriously as a violation of civil rights, which is good. 

Her husband is arrested and claims it was to prevent her vote from canceling out his, and that he has studied the issues and she is ignorant. That would be a typical attitude in a case like this.

There may be three ways in which they get it wrong.

First, they make him a Democrat, locking her up because she said she was going to vote Republican. There is a reason why that might work, but in general, locking women up so they can't vote and ruin things would be more of a Republican move.

Second, he then casts everything as her dominating him; he was considerate to lock her in the bathroom instead of the closet. His parting shot is that he used to be taller than her.

If she was the dominating one, it seems unlikely that he would have been inclined or able to lock her up. 

There is another aspect to that which makes it more important, but the part I initially hated was that then she was asking everyone how to vote, decided not to vote when no one would tell her, and Barney's solution was to close her eyes while choosing.

I suppose the backstory you could add is that the whole thing shook her confidence, causing her to doubt her initial inclination to vote Republican. I feel what they are really doing is playing into feminine stereotypes and giving into backlash against feminism. I do not appreciate it.

When I was writing about when Barney Miller gets women wrong specifically, I did not cite this episode, but I did think of it. Still, I hadn't thought it required any additional comment.

I just finished Survivor Injustice by Kylie Cheung Wednesday. 

It covers many types of interpersonal violence and abuse, but interfering with voting is a pretty common one and how it starts. However, it is generally only one part of the abuse. 

Where they may have gotten it right is that it is not limited to one party. The book did acknowledge that as a matter of policy support, there is some similarity to Republican policies, but there are abusers on both sides.

There were stories of canvassers coming upon women who were scared to talk, or not allowed to talk when their partner intruded on the conversation. There were women who could not register to vote so as not to allow their abusive ex to locate their new address. There was a woman whose husband accompanied her into the voting booth, telling the workers that she was slow and needed help. There was the woman who didn't vote because she was afraid of running into her abusive ex again.

While going to polling places does not affect us here in Oregon, if you live with someone who is abusive and controlling, they may not let you fill out your ballot and mail it as desired.

As I was reading that, I kept thinking of this episode and getting mad.

I understand they are trying to make it funny; they probably were not thinking about how terrible some women do have it, because again, there were the occasional wife-beating jokes. I don't think they really would think a woman getting beaten up is funny, probably, but it's that paternalism, where women don't really have it that bad, bless their hearts.

The episode bothered me -- despite my love for the series -- and now it bothers me more.

Text-cards

I think a lot about being connected more.

One of the ideas came about when we were in San Diego. My sisters were noticing that you don't see postcards now the way you used to. There are not as many for sale, and often more drawn than photographed.

I assume that is because people are buying them less, and that factors in that include people not sending as much mail in general, but also people taking photos with their phone and then uploading them... there would be less demand.

It occurred to me, though, that I could send text postcards: snap a photo and send it to a friend saying "Wish you were here!"

I tried that in front of the turtle enclosure, but the picture didn't go through.

It still seemed like the idea had some promise.

I got another friend's cell phone number to see if we might be able to get together while I was kind of in the area. I got the number late; we did not get together and I did not sent any pictures.

That was mainly timing, but the other issue is that when we go places, I am using a camera instead of my phone. I take lots of pictures, but not that way. Still, I could potentially whip the phone out, if I remembered.

I have since obtained one more friend's cell phone number, and texted that friend a picture that I thought she would like. Progress!

With a long way to go.

Barney Miller: The Child Stealers

It is hard to pick a favorite episode, but this one -- episode 15 of season 6 -- is right near the top.

Part of that is our love for Marty and Darryl, played by Jack DeLeon and Ray Stewart, but I would not write a post just for that. There is a dynamic in play that I think is really important, but that gets overlooked.

Marty and Darryl are both gay men. We first meet Marty as a purse snatcher and shoplifter, but Darryl always seems to have been well off financially. Reading one thing about this episode, the writer mentioned Darryl's clothing (a suit and overcoat) as a move away from the stereotype. Even when he is dressed more flamboyantly it is with excellent taste, including a handmade sweater from Italy.

I think the suit is because he is being business-like, wanting to be taken seriously; his ex-wife is no longer honoring the visitation granted in their custody agreement. 

Captain Miller is sympathetic, but that is outside of their jurisdiction. When Marty and Darryl try and snatch Darryl's son Jason from his school, that is very much in police jurisdiction.

For queer representation, this episode is more important for Officer Zatelli outing himself when tensions get high as Eleanor -- Darryl's ex-wife -- insinuates that her son should not be corrupted by exposure to the gay lifestyle.

That was not really her problem.

In fact, there had been a growing resentment that when Jason was with Darryl, his time consisted of going to Broadway shows and the ballet and the best restaurants, and then she had to be the one telling him to do his homework and go to bed and that they couldn't afford truffles.

The custodial parent having to be the heavy while the non-custodial parent gets to be the fun one is a common enough conflict that it has shown up in other television shows, and in real life.

While it was not discussed, it was also always more likely that the man was going to have more financial resources. We have been talking about gender-based pay disparity for years without much progress, and this was 1980.

Getting those issues worked out is not easy in the best of circumstances. As things get worked out, Eleanor asks Darryl to bore Jason once in a while. Maybe it would be nice if he gifted her tickets sometimes, or invited her to dinner. Once the worst of the tension subsides, you can tell there is still affection between them.

(That is one of the things I admire about acting: the performers having probably never worked together before, and yet you feel all of this unstated backstory.)

I would say that I know a surprising number of couples who have gotten married and then split up because one of them was gay, except it's not really a surprising number. I am Mormon, and my friends were largely getting married in the 90s. Things were starting to get better, but a lot of people were still remaining in the closet and feeling pressured to do so. They were not all from church either.

Who knew that getting married to someone of the opposite sex would not relieve the pressure?

Some of the eventual breakups were more acrimonious than others. I can only imagine the hurt and sense of betrayal. That so many of them have been able to successfully co-parent is a wonderful thing. 

That is worth thinking about, but here is the point that I really want to make...

It was easy for Eleanor to blame it on Darryl's sexual orientation.

Maybe it was embarrassing to admit that she was jealous and frustrated, but it was easy to not even mention that because so many people were going to be supportive. If there was still some sting from losing her husband because he was gay, maybe that's just gravy.

As long as we have groups that are marginalized, people will use that. 

Sometimes they are just being jerks, but taking those easy targets can keep us from really getting at the root.

Cutting Jason off from his father wasn't good for anyone. She might have been able to influence a judge to cut off visitation because of Darryl's sexual orientation, but who would that have helped? She would have been left with her resentment, her son would have one less person who loves him available, and Darryl would have been very hurt (which would only bring a temporary and wrong satisfaction to Eleanor).

The truth sets us free, but sometimes it requires digging.

A Cheerful Receiver

If asking to be paid for work was hard, simply receiving has its own difficulty.

Technically I have been poor since 2016. That was when I was laid off at the same time that my mother started to get worse. It was clear that the right thing to do was to stay with her, and that remains clear. 

That does not mean that I clearly understood how things would go.

From about that point, almost any time friends took me out they were treating me. I didn't feel great about it, but I do have good friends and it was also possible to believe it was temporary.

Well, it was temporary. I started working again and started to dig my way out of the whole. I even bought a friend lunch on one excursion.

Then the garnishment started.

No one is being terrible about it. Being open about it probably helps. I don't have any illusions that everyone reads my blog, but there is information out there, and I am certainly past the point of trying to hide a shameful secret.

That doesn't mean I am over it bothering me, which does seem like something to work on. How much of it is pride? How much of it is feelings of unworthiness? How much am I caught up in societal expectations despite all I know about the flaws of unbridled capitalism and the absolute fallacy of a meritocracy?

I am not sure. 

There are a few thoughts that keep bumping around on my path to wholeness.

One is a memory from three years ago. It feels like it's been longer.

At that point I had started getting some pay for caring for Mom, so I had some money but not much. I had $10, and I strongly felt that I needed to give it to someone. Remembering it, I remember it feeling awkward to offer it and worse because it was so little. I had kind of forgotten how big an offering it would have been for me. I was remembering only having $10 cash, but in fact that would have been a pretty big chunk of my available funds in any form.

I remember awkwardly tendering the offer, and her saying "I accept it with a good heart."

Which was what I needed to hear.

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2020/04/re-becoming-somebody.html

I also keep thinking about some of the people who are always participating in mutual aid. They give to others, and they draw attention to the needs of others, but they also ask when they need it.

Is it hard for them? Is it easier because they do so much to help others? Does that help them know it's okay?

Are they just more evolved, where they not only intellectually understand the need for mutual aid but feel it emotionally as well?

I mean, given that my past baggage had a lot to do with having to take responsibility for everyone else first, and put others over me, I might be a little behind in getting there.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to help people, but sometimes it is also necessary to be helped. 

I'm still trying to work that out.