Mal has been on his iPad all morning. He's in Minecraft making a copy of our home. He just finished the house part and is working on the back yard. He put up a chicken coop and even spawned some chickens in it. While he's been busy with that, I wrote some funny and untrue things on his MagnaDoodle, which he either read successfully or which I helped him sound out. He doesn't like breaking words down to sound them out. He wants to guess. He guessed "pancakes" as "princess" because he doesn't like to slow down. So we're working on that. It's a process.
Yesterday was pretty warm and humid but today is cooling off. The 70 degrees to which I woke up was the day's high. I have the windows open but won't for long. Once the temperature in the house drops to 70, I'll close up for a while.
We actually ate at a restaurant yesterday; outside, of course. We went to Lucy's and Mal played on the playground with some kids while we enjoyed our first meal out, on-site, since Memorial Day weekend. Oh, I guess we did eat at the food truck court in Marble Falls earlier this month. Anyway, it was nice. We were way off in a corner alone, too, so it felt pretty safe.
For us. A guy who was eating with a few families had some kind of medical episode. I don't know what it was, but he was having trouble staying upright. Several people finally called 911 before his friend managed to get him into a truck and on his way to the hospital. It looked how I feel when I can't get blood to my head and have to sit or lie down for a while, but then it started to look almost like a seizure. Scary stuff. Hope he's okay.
Friday night, our city hosted a drive-in viewing of Casper the Friendly Ghost. I'd never seen it; I guess I was too old to be the target audience when it came out in 1995. It was cute. However, I missed a bit of it. One of the kind of neat things was that the movie would be played on the radio, and we'd taken our little CD player/radio (after I'd procured 6 C batteries for the occasion) so we wouldn't have to run down our car's batteries. Both of the vehicles on either side of us just left their engines running. FOR THE WHOLE MOVIE. Heh. Sorry about that, Earth. Good gravy.
Anyhow, the blow-up screen also had a sound system that was entirely adequate. It was so adequate that Mal eventually had us close the hatchback to filter the sound. I took that as my cue to come up to the house to get his headphones. I walked as fast as I could and then biked back down the hill (conclusion: the bike we bought D last year is garbage and probably unsafe for taller people or those with big feet, due to the position of the pedals), and after that, we all enjoyed the movie and the experience thoroughly.
Oh, there were snacks. Always a crowd-pleaser.
I'm sure I have more to write, but I'm hungry so it's lunchtime. Today is totchos: tater tots, vegetarian chili, quest, tomatoes, sour cream, and green onions. Can't wait!
After I'd excerpted from "Hairspray!" a bit ago, James suggested we watch it again. I love that movie. It's been at least five and probably closer to seven years since I've watched it in full.
If you've been following along, you know that my entire worldview has changed massively in the past few years, and so, while I enjoyed the movie a great deal, as usual, this time a few things popped out at me that hadn't before. I'll list them, then explain why they're problematic.
1) Although there was structural racism in the film (i.e. white kids were the norm for the music show, with black kids getting only one day every month), it was embodied in a single, nasty white woman, Velma Von Tussle.
2) When "Negro Day" (as the once-a-month black episode is called) is cancelled, it is Tracy Turnblad (white protagonist) who has the idea to march on the television station.
3) After many black folk and Edna Turnblad (Tracy's mom, also white) are arrested at the march, Wilbur Turnblad, husband/dad, bails EVERYONE out. He says it's about 20 people.
4) Little Inez Stubbs (the daughter of the host of "Negro Day," "Motormouth" Maybelle) dances on the show when Link Larkin, a white guy, brings her out onstage.
First, I want to say that when I literally googled "Is Hairspray a white savior movie" yesterday, I learned something interesting about this film. John Waters wrote it as an alternate/happy ending to a real event in Baltimore history. The Buddy Deane Show ran on local TV from 1957 until 1964. It, too, had a white cast and audience, saving once per month. A civil rights group staged a "dance in" where the show was integrated for the episode. Apparently, the producers of the show supported integration, but rather than deal with the blowback from area segregationists, canceled the show altogether. This was Waters' way of literally rewriting history.
So I know that this was written with no ill intent. The music is superb, and the tone is so hopeful; I think that is one of the things that appeals to me most. When I listened to "You Can't Stop the Beat" the other day, I was a little saddened by the line "Tomorrow is a brand new day and it don't know white from black." It's so aspirational. And we have so far to go.
Now, here is why the things I didn't even notice before are problematic:
1) Hateful racist lady: This is a character that allows us to say, "Yeah, she's awful. Good thing I'm not like that!" and basically not have to examine our own complicity in any systems that exist today that uphold racial inequality. It allows us to say, "If that's what racism looks like, I'm definitely not racist!" In that way, it absolves us as the "good white guy." We're part of the "Not all white people" crowd. In our minds. And we're not moved to challenge that thinking.
2) What are the odds, in 1963, that a 17-year-old white girl would have the idea to march as a protest before any black kids and even an adult black woman? It sort of takes away some agency and although the whole group (all black folks except for Tracy) ends up marching, it makes them seem almost passive and ignorant in asserting their own rights.
3) I can understand why Maybelle and Seaweed would need to be bailed out, but if a white dad had to bail everyone else's kids out, this says something about their parents' presence and/or ability to post bail themselves. We already know that Wilbur is a VERY good guy; this points to his better impulses, I understand. But it makes him literally their savior.
4) This is another instance where, instead of a black person being shown taking what is rightfully theirs, this gain is facilitated by a white person's invitation. Whereas that can be problematic as it's repeated in this fictionalized narrative, it also points to an important reality: White people have to be willing to risk their own privilege if things are ever actually going to change.
See, one of the things this hopeful but overly-simplified story does is pretend that once an instance of racism is toppled, everything shores up and we're all even. One of the things I found when I was googling yesterday was someone talking about how, in the movie, when the news anchor reports that "interracial dancing has broken out in the studios" all of the white people waiting outside go crazy in support of the desegregation. She pointed out that many white people would have (and did) lose their minds over this type of thing.
It's tempting to think that if we can just get people to stop having racial prejudices, that racism won't be a thing anymore. Which is one reason we want to say, "Well, I'm not racist. I treat everyone the same" and not have to work alongside our brothers and sister of color to assure that they have, in practice as well as theoretically, the same rights as we do. I keep seeing this quote repeated, and it's true: "It's not enough not to be racist. You have to be anti-racism."
I wish John Waters' vision of what could be had come to fruition. But we have not even started the work in earnest. I hear people say "Slavery happened 200 years ago, and I didn't have slaves, so why should I have to be responsible for any of this?" Thing is, slavery was just officially abolished (with the notable exception of incarcerated people, and we know that there is a disproportionate jailing of people of color) 150 years ago, and that there were laws both on the books and unofficially but enforced as recently as a few decades ago.
I think all white people should listen to the entire 14-part Scene On Radio series "Seeing White," but to clarify what I'm about to say, the episode on "White Affirmative Action" is truly an eye-opener.
What we are left with is like a Monopoly game where there are teams that switch players every 15 minutes. We've been playing for nearly an hour. Fifteen minutes ago, one member of one team admitted that the three people who'd played before him had cheated, and he was not going to cheat. That team is way ahead, though, as cheating was a successful strategy. Now a new member of the team comes in to play, and his opponent remarks that the opposing team isn't able to catch up given the unfair advantage the first team has. "What do you mean?!" the player says. "I just got here. I didn't cheat. We're on even ground now!"
But we can see, in this example, that they aren't. Why do we choose not to see this in real life? While people of color in our nation do not need (or want) a white savior, what we are required by our humanity to do is to listen, believe, and then partner with black folks to figure out how to fix the mess we made. We need to let them talk, and we need to be willing to give up things we think we earned solely on our own... which I don't think is as difficult to do when you realize that you DID have a leg up just by virtue of the color of your skin.
I know it won't be easy. Another quote I keep running up against is: When you've been in power a long time, equality can feel like oppression. I feel this deeply when we say, "There's racism against whites, too" or sigh over the fact that straight white cis-males can't get scholarships or jobs because companies have diversity mandates. We need to stop it. As long as we are defensive and refuse to acknowledge how lopsidedly our country as been constructed, meaningful change will not come.
James is home today for Memorial Day, and when Mal just announced that he'd started pooping a little and needed actually to go, I kindly informed James it was his turn, since I'd already handled one of those, and at Target, no less.
I was finishing up reading an article, so James gamely attempted to handle the task. But at the end, he needed to put Mal's drawers in the washing machine because he'd rinsed them out and they were damp, and we don't like to put damp clothes in the hamper.
The only issue with that is that I'd started laundry a couple of hours ago and hadn't moved the clean clothes into the dryer. So I got up to do that. Since James needed to wash up, I took the pants from him and put them in the washing machine. I started the water running and was putting some soap in when I realized that the "no spill" insert in the soap jug had detached and fallen into the soap.
I tried to fix it manually, but it was too slimy to get a grip on, so I had to get a pair of pliers... and that worked, but so much for sitting and taking it easy while James did all the work.
Anyone else have those times when it seems like you're trying to do one little thing (or nothing at all) and it becomes a big series of drawn-out things?
In other news, Mal and I did NOT have a quiet Friday, but it was cool. Just before lunch, I noticed that the Aladdin live-action reboot had just opened, so I asked Mal if he wanted to go, and, to my surprise, he did! We bought tickets for the show an hour from then, and it was almost sold out already.
We left immediately and had time for some ice cream at Baskin Robbins first. While we were there, "Johnny B. Goode" was playing in the store, and Mal said, "That's the same guitar and singer as 'Route 66'!" Now he knows Chuck Berry by name.
After the movie, which we thoroughly enjoyed, we went to the mall because Mal wanted to play on the indoor playground. James got off of work just about the time we got to the mall, and he met us there in Build-a-Bear, surprising Mal.
Eventually, I came home to make dinner (beef stew, THANK YOU, Instant Pot... it took an hour and tasted slow simmered!), and James and Mal walked in right as dinner was ready.
James and Mal are outside now playing with water balloons, so I'm going to go try to research a few things I've not had time to do with a busy 4-year-old who desires constant companionship!
The day that tickets went on sale for The Last Jedi, we bought them. We chose today instead of yesterday (opening day) because they were less than half the price. I chose 5 PM instead of noon in case James was working by now. We had a discussion beforehand about whether the widespread availability of pre-sale tickets in theaters with reserved seats will eliminate the cultural phenomenon of camping out to get good seats for the midnight premiers of big films (although now I think they start them at like 7 instead of midnight, but still say today is the opening day?). Anyhoo...
This was our second whole-family movie outing in under a month. It would be our third, but Mal bowed out of the last one, and actually said about an hour before time to leave today that he wanted to stay home. Normally, I'd let him (as I did last time) but 1) he cried TO go once the time actually came.. and I'd already refunded the tickets and 2) I really wanted to see The Last Jedi!
Fortunately, he was calmed down and ready to go when we went. Actually, he was bummed that his dad had a Stormtrooper shirt and he didn't, so I pulled out a shirt I bought him for next summer, and it was gigantic, but it has 4 Stormtroopers on it, so he was pretty happy.
Since we knew the movie was going to be 2.5 hours, we got there right as the previews started, and James and D went on in to bookend our seats while Mal and I stocked up on snacks. We missed about 10 minutes of previews, but still saw a lot.
Then it started. When the iconic Star Wars music started, Mal began humming along. Cue D's hand covering the facing ear and an overt squirming in the comfortable theater lounger. I reminded Mal that we have to be quiet at the theater, though he's welcome to sing along with the theme at home.
The movie hits the ground running, and so did the kid who was sitting on the opposite side of D. Restless and a few seats away from her parents, she would pull the foot rest up, put it down, climb over it to play in the floor, etc. Because I don't have sensory processing disorder, I didn't really notice it at first, even though the ground was vibrating a bit independently of the movie.
Mal seemed to be enjoying the rollicking action sequences, but was less enthusiastic about visiting Snoke's throne room. I'd offered to let him sit in my lap, and when Snoke showed up was when Mal took me up on it. After a few minutes, he began to squirm. "Do you need to go to the restroom?" Yep.
I carried Mal out (thank goodness for the new spacious recliner rows!) and he did, indeed use the restroom. After we washed our hands, I told him, "On the walk back to the theater, I want you to get all of your wiggles out!" So he went down the hall flapping his arms and kicking his feet out and making more noise than he could do in the theater without being disturbingly loud.
When we went back in, he sat in his own seat for a bit until something else intense happened, when he wanted back in my lap.
About this time, the little girl on the other side of D got the hiccups. Hiccups are very close to the top of the list in terms of aggravating D's misophonia. "I'm going to go sit over there." Thus D spent the rest of the movie in a cubby in the aisle, just beside the fire exit.
Actually, with D gone, I could let Mal move around a little more without worrying he'd accidentally make contact. It was then that I really realized how much the girl on our row was climbing around. I was surprised D hadn't said something to her, because a full empty seat away, it was starting to get on my nerves. Eventually, her dad took her to get some popcorn.
"I need to go potty again." This time, I picked Mal up and carried him like a ventriloquist's dummy up (waving at D on the way past) and out of the theater. We sprinted to a different bathroom, wanting to hurry back because exciting things were afoot, movie-wise.
Mal giddily did his crazy walk back to the theater, clearly tiring out for the day, as he kept falling down. We again passed the people on our row and sat down. The girl in the row came back with the pricey Execution Trooper collectible popcorn head thing and was babbling to herself. I tried to make my "shh" sound sweet and maternal. Lord knows I had to keep reminding Mal. What got me about her was that it was clear her parents put her at the end of their line of people and just forgot about her. Actually, her dad DID ask her to stop putting the chair up and down about the time Mal said, "I have to go to the bathroom."
Fewer than 10 minutes had elapsed since we'd left the previous time, so I told James we were not going to come back to the seats. We went to the bathroom, Mal complaining that I wasn't carrying him. I suspected that he'd said he wanted to go so I'd do the carry/running thing, and he did not, in fact, need to go. But he was eager to run in the hallway. I told him we weren't going to do that and could either go stand in the back of the theater so I could see the movie, or just stand outside and wait for our family. He said, "Daddy came to the movies without me!" Um, no. You left him, silly.
Oh, he also said, "But I *am* going to run up and down the hall!" Wrong-o.
We went back in and sat on an out-of-the-way stair, but Mal started coughing. From then on, every time we stepped out into the hall, he was fine. But then we'd go inside and he'd start coughing so hard, I knew we were being distracting. I was able to see pieces of the movie in fits and starts, but for the last 45 minutes really had no idea what was going on.
At one point, Mal was content to walk up and down the ramp (don't worry; it's set up so that no one in the theater could see him) while I stood at the end and watched a bit. But eventually, I could hear him passing gas and whisked him back out.
"Did you poop your pants?" "Yes." He didn't. He's had a bit of an upset stomach due, I believe, to the drainage and coughing and not eating much over the past few days. Nevertheless, we went into the restroom and he said, "This place smells funny" before gagging. I thought that was it and he was going to be sick. I asked, "Do you need to throw up?" He said, "No! I don't want to barf!!"
I waited with him a LONG time, and he didn't go, so I begged him to slip back in so I could catch the end, and we did. Like literally. I stepped inside, and the screen went black then "Music by John Williams."
Mal started bawling, "I want to see it again!"
I was able to stop his yelling by the promise of ice cream on the way out, and then sent him and James on while I got refills of popcorn and soda and D watched the closing credits. While D and I waited for James and Mal, I asked about something in the movie, but D refused to discuss it with me in public lest anyone overhear any spoilers.
We all got to the car, and I was trying to get Mal's sleep diaper on in case he fell asleep in the car on the way home. He did not. But he did cough pretty much nonstop in the 3 freezing minutes it took me to get the pants/shoes off, diaper on, shoes back on. D was sitting in the front seat, hunched over, breathe holes covered with a t-shirt. And this was the entire ride home.
So my review of "The Last Jedi" is, as I told James: I cannot see another movie with our entire family again. It's too stressful. I can probably handle D's stuff. And I can mostly handle Mal's stuff. But both of their stuff together is too much.
Also, I'd really like to see "The Last Jedi" in its entirety very soon. The parts I saw were impressive.
Finally, sometimes it's difficult not to be a little jealous that some families can "just" go and do stuff and be pretty confident that it will work out. We try and plan and attempt to accommodate everyone, but, gosh, it's hard.
We have a vacation planned for late next year. The reason we're planning it so early is to fit these differences in. But we've given D the choice of whether to go or not, because traveling is particularly anxiety-provoking (noises, lots of potentially sick people, uncertainty, etc.). So if you hear later that our family vacations don't always include the *whole* family, just remember this three-hour outing and know that it's better for us to do what works for EVERYONE, even if it's not what I'd consider ideal, which is that we'd all do it together.
We saw "Beauty and the Beast" last night. I'd seen the headline to this earlier in the day, but didn't read it until my husband mentioned it last night.
Oh my goodness, what the heck?? Why do people want to be mad?
First of all, I'm "just" a domestic woman. I don't have a job. I am a dreamer. I haven't done anything remarkable. And I feel like a feminist, anyway. This movie didn't make me ashamed for who I am. Oh, and I use my words, as the article mentions, but I don't always use "soft" "kind" "vulnerable" words, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time sobbing into my sheets. Still consider myself pretty much full on lady girl type person.
Second of all, I do not think that Emma Watson is an amazing actor as much as I think she's a capable enough actor, and an amazing person. So some of the "vulnerability" or "feelings" they might miss from the cartoon might be a function of her just not having the range to express those things.
But, anyway, the gist of the article is that "Emma Watson" (meaning, collectively, this movie and all involved in developing the character of Belle) has ruined Belle, and Olivia Friedman is going to tell you why.
So here are some excerpts from the article, and the issues I have with her hypothesis:
"To that end, Belle does not follow the path of the original Disney movie." How? The exact same things happen. There's not a real departure.
"She is thoughtful, sweet-natured and touchingly vulnerable." Really?
"In the original film, Belle wants more than her provincial life, but she is a dreamer." Yeah, true. Have you listened to the words of the opening song, "This Provincial Life"? Belle is haughty and elitist. Even in the original film, she talks (sings) about how she has "more" than those tedious province-dwellers have in store. She's destined for more. She sees herself as not like them, even as she seems to blanche at being seen as strange. She herself feels she's "other," and, one gets the impression, somehow better than they are, bless 'em.
"In contrast, the Belle of 2017 does not vow. When the Beast won’t come into the light, she swings a candlestick at him, catching him in its glow so as to reveal him against his will. Similarly, she forces her father from his prison, locking herself into his cage after whispering into his ear that she is not afraid and that she will find a way to escape. When Lumiere unlocks her cell door, she hits him with her dungeon stool. As soon as she is in her room, rather than sobbing on her bed, as the Belle of the original film does, she starts tying sheets and ribbons together in an effort to escape from the castle. At first, she has only disdain and hatred for the beast, spitting defiant words at him through her locked bedroom door and standing up to him rather than retreating into herself."
Ugh. Where to start with that one. So what, she wants to see her captor? So what, she knows her father would never let her trade him places? She does what she does out of FEELINGS (which they go on to pontificate she does not have and this is what makes her an offensive uber-feminist butch-y ass-kicker instead of "vulnerable") for her father, knowing him and that he, too, would sacrifice himself for her.
Also, she spat defiant words at him through her locked bedroom door in the cartoon, too. Here's a clip that's been over-dubbed by a fan, but Disney is super protective of their products and it's not easily/legally available online in its original iteration. But anyway, here she refuses him multiple times. She doesn't say, "I'll never have dinner with you," but she says "I'm not hungry," a tense, forced, "No, thanks," and then finally, "NO!" So she doesn't just "retreat into herself." She refuses. Strongly.
"The message is that the original Belle is not sufficiently heroic. She reads Jack and the Beanstalk, loving magical tales, instead of being familiar with Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet. She blows dandelion spores into the wind. She uses words, not violence, to save her father."
OH MY GOSH. STOP. "She blows dandelion spores"??? That's so important to the feminine ideal, what brutes they were to cut that! And, honest to God, I don't see the difference in Jack and the Beanstalk and Romeo and Juliet. Even Beast kind of mocks her for loving romances. Sounds fairly dreamy to me.
And who says the message is that the original Belle wasn't sufficiently heroic? Any time a movie is remade, there will be some additions and changes. I personally liked the tying-fabric-together scene, because... well, she's not using VIOLENCE or "stereotypical masculine" behavior; she's not using words, but she's using her freaking brain. So that makes it offensive? To whom??
The article talks a lot about how the original Belle "sobs" onto her bed, and, again, feels all the sad lady feels... but I'm guessing the person who wrote this never saw the Broadway musical? Because if they're mad she's so defiant to the Beast, then they can't have heard the TWENTY-THREE-YEAR-OLD lyrics, "Yes, I've made the choice: for Papa I will stay, but I don't deserve to lose my freedom in this way, you monster. If you think that what you've done is right, well then you're a fool; think again... Build higher walls around me; change every lock and key. Nothing lasts; nothing holds all of me." (And then I feel all the sad lady feels.)
The article talks a lot about how Belle has to be "fearless." "To be a 21st century heroine means that it is not enough to be afraid and still choose to be brave — no, one must be fearless." When her father encourages this of her, I don't think he's saying, "Don't be scared" like, "Don't be a little baby scaredy cat." I think he means, "You might be scared, but do it, anyway, because you're awesome." I think it's semantics and lots of splitting hairs to argue that bravery in the face of danger and being fearless are hugely different. If someone truly has no fear, they're probably psychotic.
"And it is that vulnerability that the 21st century heroine version of Belle — Emma Watson’s Belle — does away with. To be a 21st century heroine, we are taught, means to stand up for oneself, always choosing to be active rather than reflective, to be defiant rather than vulnerable, privileging logic over emotion."
I think that might be the second most offensive part of the article. I don't think we're "taught" this, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with it. If I were locked in a castle by a scary monster, I might cry a little bit at first, but I'd also be spinning my wheels, trying to figure something out. And women SHOULD stand up for themselves in times of oppression, if they can. Everyone should. If I am unjustly arrested and jailed, should I take the time to parse it out in my thoughtful mind wanderings, blowing dandelions (or whatever they have in jail), or is my time better served calling a lawyer and figuring out what to do about the injustice?
"And in the iconic scene after the dance where the Beast lets her go, we loved the fact that she told him she was happy with him but wished to see her father again because she missed him so much. This allows the Beast to do the right thing on his own. This, as opposed to the 2017 version where, when asked if she is happy, Belle prompts the Beast, asking, “Can anybody be happy if they aren’t free?”"
HOW CAN YOU LEVY THIS AS A CRITICISM?? I have nothing to add to that.
"Yes, she wanted more than her provincial life, but living happily with a man she loved, respected and who understood her was sufficient." I don't see how that's any different in this movie.
"She was an idealist, someone lost in books and fairytales — not an inventor, or someone logically sorting through how to break the curse, or consistently fearless. She valued the Beast’s being gentle and kind because that’s who she was."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say she valued the Beast's being gentle and kind because people don't like it when others are mean to them. I can't believe I'm having to point that out.
And I can't believe a woman wrote this article. "Someone lost in books and fairytales..." Okay? So, how is that better than being logical? I think those are moral-neutral things to be. Why are we having this conversation?
"The Belle of 2017, with her strong, defiant, stoic attitude — choosing anger over sadness — sets us back. It says that a woman of today is not impressive if she does not do something, such as become an inventor, or if she feels too much — crying rather than creating escape routes. It takes much of the Boy Code that makes our culture of masculinity so toxic and applies it to women, arguing that heroism is linked to toughness and stoicism."
This is the most offensive paragraph, along with the bit later about how Belle acts in "stereotypically masculine" ways.
I don't think the movie said any of these things, first of all. But secondly, DID YOU WATCH THE FIRST MOVIE?! Belle wasn't just a doe-eyed dingdong crying and floating through the story.
After Gaston's marriage proposal, she said (sang): "He asked me to marry him. Me, the wife of that boorish, brainless..."
That sounds pretty angry and not really "kind."
Anyway, I thought the movie was beautiful and, armed with reasonable expectations, I enjoyed it. Of course, it's the first movie I've seen in a theater in 2 years, so that was something.
Conservative corners are mad about the "big gay storyline" (which wasn't, actually; even though LaFou did have every LOL line in the film); LGBT corners aren't thrilled that the first portrayal of an openly gay character in a Disney film is someone literally named "fool;" and now this. Man, they're just supposed to be fun flights of fancy, and I enjoyed mine.
As a bonus, this is my favorite song from the Broadway show. That was one slight disappointment I had: they added some mini songs to string together the new scenes, but I would have loved to see some of the music from the play in the new movie. They did hint at "Home" a couple of times when Belle was in her room.
But overall, a pretty non-controversial, sentimental retelling of a Disney classic. Can I get an "amen"?
In addition to the ubiquitous saturation of the radio, internet, and our very brains by the soundtrack (particularly one song to which I will not refer, lest I inadvertently hand you an ear worm) of the Disney movie "Frozen," there has been much written on what message the show presents at its core.
"It's about how women don't need men to save them." "It's about how only love can melt a frozen heart." "It suckers you in by thinking it's feminist, but then when Elsa becomes fully 'herself,' she vamps it up with more make-up, a painted on dress, and pole dancing."
As a parent, I probably took away a message that was different than anything my daughter might have noticed.
Basically, what was important to me, was that Elsa's parents learned something about their daughter that they did not understand and feared. In their fear, they took poor advice and told her it was something dangerous and shameful, and that she needed to hide it. And that's what sets the movie's plot into gear.
How many times do we reprimand a child with, "Don't say things like that!" Period. No explanation. We just want to stop an embarrassing behavior, so we put the kibosh on it without teaching to it. Say, you're at someone's house and they serve asparagus for dinner. Your child says, "No, I don't like asparagus." *cringe* "Rude! Don't say that."
What does the child hear? "Don't be honest about my feelings"? "Don't dislike things"? "Hide the truth from my parents because it makes them mad"?
It's a totally different thing to teach to that. "Our friend went to a lot of work to prepare dinner. When you work really hard on something, how would you feel if someone just shrugged and said, 'Eh. Don't like'? It would probably hurt your feelings. Especially if you were proud of yourself, or knew that what you'd done was difficult. If you don't like a food someone serves us, you can say 'No, thank you' or you can take some and try a bite or two. Then we can talk about why you don't like it later, in private. Is it the smell? The taste? The texture? I love to know about your likes and dislikes, but not at a time when it might hurt someone else."
That is a lot of words. It can be exhausting. I get that. But to assume, "That kid's just being a jerk. He knows better" is foolish. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't have a clue. And I get it that sometimes, no just means no and your kid has to accept that. But those times should be so few and far between.
Same thing if your child appears to be bossy (different from bullying) or outspoken and fearless or just plain weird. Character flaws require training and discipline to remedy. But sometimes, behaviors we find unacceptable might just be indications of a strength or personality bent that God put there, and it's our exhausting responsibility to help our children control and direct that strength somewhere positive.
Stop saying that! Oh, you think you're in love but you're too young to know what love is. You are not leaving the house dressed like that. Don't look at me that way. Stop that sighing. Stop biting your nails! It's disgusting! You just think you have problems; you have no idea. You're not going and that's that; don't talk to me about it any more.
I want to protect my daughter from actual harm. I want for her to make wise choices, and do things that will ultimately benefit her. But she will make mistakes. And she can make mistakes while she's at home with a safety net of love and acceptance and parents who will help her navigate the consequences of those choices, or she can be hemmed in on every side and when she finally leaves, sing: "No right, no wrong, no rules for me! I'M FREE!" and nearly destroy herself and the people she loves.
So, that's what Frozen was "about" to me, as a mom. None of the other stuff would have happened if the parents had made better choices. But then, what would they be playing on the radio?
