Some Changes

This Blog started as a class assignment. But I've decided to make a switch. This will now be the place where I will post my writing. This work will include snippets of fiction as well as essays. I also hope to post news about my submissions and hopefully publications. But first thing is first, with my new schedule I have writing time in the mornings, and regular posting will be part of that time. It's a new school, a new routine, and hopeful I positive fresh start. So with out further ado, here's an essay I call "Deception."

When the Munchkin was brand new, I watched every step of development with wonder and awe. I firmly believed that I would never lie to her. I planned to explain every decision, vowing to never use the hated phrase: Because I said so. And in the beginning it was easy to hold these ideals. She simply didn’t argue with me. She ate what I gave her and watched me with wide attentive eyes.

And then we fell down the other side of the mountain. Her willful side kicked into high gear and life got exponentially more difficult. My little Munchkin does everything in her own time. She refuses to be swayed by even largest show of force. So where did that leave me? I found my way into the world of subterfuge.

My mother sent me a copy of Deceptively Delicious by Jessica Seinfeld. This book has been around for a while now, but just in case you haven’t come across it, I explain. The idea is that you make fruit and vegetable purees, and store them in the freezer. Then you add them into your kids’ favorite recipes to sneak in extra vitamins and nutrients. My first experiment was with banana bread, the recipes called for cauliflower puree. The Hubbie said “Mmmmm this good. New recipe?” I laughed so hard I nearly fell over. Well I never said I was a good spy. The jig was up with him. He became my co-conspirator.

Over the last two years I’ve added squash puree into Mac and Cheese, carrot puree into meatloaf, summer squash into “plain” buttered noodles. However my daughter’s favorite dish is something she calls pink pancakes. Can you guess what makes them pink? It’s beets, a vegetable she won’t touch in its original form. This particular recipe also uses ricotta cheese so she’s unknowingly getting protein and vegetables. It’s a real powerhouse. And when I pull the beet puree out of the fridge she calls it the “bag of pink.”

As I progress through motherhood I find issues that shouldn’t be avoided or ignored as well as little moments, like these, where nutrition is more important. I’ve even gotten her to eat baked eggs with cauliflower puree because I called them puffs and she got her own little cup. In this case it’s not so much deception as artful presentation.

Mark Wahlberg was furious about this skit. He said that we wanted to punch Adam Sandburg. And then when he calmed down he had this to say Now after a while he ended up on SNL spoofing his own angry reaction to the skit. To be honest I thought that was funnier than the original skit. So in a way I think Wahlberg actually helped the SNL crew on that one. And in fact he helped himself. Being a actor you're in the limelight. And people may impersonate for whatever reason. And that's what happens when you choose to be in the public eye. It's the same for politicians although I can see how they would be less amused than a actor. They have more to lose by slanderous comedy. But the Wahlberg skit just made fun of his accent. He's from Boston, comedy based on that accent is nothing new. So in my opinion it was a good thing that Wahlberg loosened up and spoofed himself, because he really had no reason to be so very upset in the first place. Here's Mark Wahlberg part 2:

Ethics on the road

Sorry this post is coming up late. I'm still in Milwaukee, celebrating birthdays, but I'm taking time out to post. One of the questions we talked about last class, is the idea of responsibility. This is such a loaded idea. In a way it is linked to the concept of context, because joking in a small private controlled group is one thing. It's kind of like manners. You're more controlled and cautious in public setting than if you're at home. Personally I belch at home all the time, but I would never do it in public, if I could help it. The same is true of jokes. I'm not big on racial jobs but if I partake, it's usually at home in a controlled group. I know what to expect and I know I won't offend people, and vice versa. I do think that like manners in a public context you do have a responsibility to behave well.

Justus brought up an interesting point in class, about how we deal with offensive humor. I don't think that the government should be censoring people. However as a community I think we have a responsibility to speak out about truly offensive things. When the humor is a hate-motivated public call, something should be said. My journalism professor husband is really big about Free Speech. When he teaches it, he always explains that although you are Free to say things you still have a responsibility for what you say. I feel that for ever point there is counter point, and when as a society we see something we don't agree with we have a responsibility to speak out. For instance the Suicide Awareness group that spoke out about "The Office" had every right to present their argument. Whether you agree with them or not is not the point. They have the right, or responsibility to speak out on behalf of that population. Neo-Nazi groups who use hate derived humor to call their supporters should be spoken against. Otherwise you are encouraging it in a way. That old phrase, "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" is true. If you have convictions you should stand up for them. If you don't, then they aren't convictions. Healthy debate is a sign of a civilized society, apathy doesn't help anyone.

Bad Black Jokes.....

Our topic this week is the Ethics of Humor. And what is a more ethical mine field than racial jokes. In the right context I see nothing wrong with mild stereotypical jokes. However among the list of jokes we were to contextualize, this week, someone were full of hate and truly offensive. So I chose I less inflammatory joke because I feel I can say more about the humor in stereotypes rather than the humor of hatred.

What do black people and semen have in common?
-Only one in a million work.

Okay so why is this funny? My grandfather is a great lover of racial humor. Being a semi devout Catholic he might not laugh at this one, due to the sexual overtone. But he's shared more than a few "black" jokes at holidays. In fact my first experience with this kind of joke came from him. Why does he laugh? He was a third shift police officer working the Cabrini Green Projects in Chicago for years. In his experience there was truth to this kind of statement. Sure my father had a couple up-standing African American friends, but my Dad could be a trouble maker too. His friends weren't enough of an example for my grandfather. To him it was a superiority thing. He thought he knew what they were really like, because of what he saw day in and day out. This is an excuse, not a reason. Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing up his racism. But when my father was held up at gun point, it was an African American. Other than the regular drunk drivers, the majority of calls I dispatched, at a Police Department in Missouri, were African American offenders. There is some truth to the stereotype. On the flip side,some of my brother's white friends should be on the Springer Show, if it's even running anymore. There's all kind of trash, white and black, which is why I find that in the right context I can laugh at stereotypes.

I can also imagine this joke being told at one of the parties I routinely attended in high school. I need to clarify, these weren't high school parties. They were parties that high school girls were often invited too. I was dating an older brother of a friend, and he had a condo. He was friends with some of the lowest lowlife in the area. We drank with gang-bangers and ex-cons. One friend in particular was dating an ex-con who liked to play the rival gangs against each other. He had a slew of illegitimate kids and he was black. At the time it seemed his job was running from the cops. After we graduated he called this girl at her college dorm to ask her to come bail him out of jail. He would have laughed at this joke. He would have seen it as a badge of honor. He didn't sell drugs because he had no other way to make money. He loved the thrill, he loved laying around for days on end. Every time he successfully evaded the police, it was a notch on his bedpost. So here's an example of the demographic deriving joy form the slanderous humor.

Later in college I met a guy who would have laughed at this joke, because it wasn't about him. He was African American, came from a modest family, had scholarships but no ghetto friends. And he would have laughed and said something about "those" people. He enjoyed the sex-god stereotypes, but didn't let the others affect him, because he didn't see himself in the same category. It's similar to how I can laugh at the red-neck jokes, because they are about someone else. I'm not saying that this guy represents all African Americans. I'm sure that many would take offense at this joke. I'm simply using examples from my life to show how some people would react. If I had grown up in the projects and pulled myself out I would take offense at this. And I'm sure that there are people like my college friend, who grew up better off but would still take offense, simply because others group by color. Which to me is the most ignorant of all. Maybe because I've seen and known all kinds of African American people I have a different view. And that's the slice I wanted to share.

I wonder what my brother-in-law's reaction would be. He tends to laugh at black jokes and then shake his head and say something like: That's cold man. Maybe he laughs to diffuse the tension of being the only black guy in our family. But I have seen him joke with his fiends and he acts the same way. He's a sweetheart. He's stable and puts up with more than his fair share with my sister. And he always has a smile. So where does he fall in this spectrum? Maybe that's the problem it is a spectrum and unless you really know someone you have to careful about your jokes. The article we read about Bob Knight brings this to light. There was private joking, but the public perception of it was off. No one say the picture of Knight teasing the white player. and no one say "footage" from the practice, only the one photo. And isolated it probably looked pretty bad, but in it's full context it was funny to all concerned. And that's my point here. Some racial jokes are full of venom and simply spiteful. But some poke fun at stereotypes, and are all in jest at the time. But you need to be part of that time to be able to make that decision.

In Group Out Group Theory

"In group Out group" theory is a pretty simple thing. It's about the only thing I remember form my husband Dissertation, other than all the wine I drank while he complained over dinner. Basiclly we are social beings and as such we attach ourselves to groups. You never exist in just one group, but the groups that you belong to you dictate your reactions to other groups. And I think this applies to our topics this week. The idea of hate speech and group theories do go hand in hand. Chris Rock is hillarious, and he makes a lot of racial jokes. But if a white guy did that same routine, would it be funny or would it be hate speech?

The article we read about "Blue Collar Comedy" goes a bit to prove this idea of groups. The comics are able with their background to create a sense of authenticity. Again if a well educated man from the north did those routines it would loose something. Not just that but I'm fairly sure people would take offense. Folksy charm is only charming when it's authentic, otherwise it's parody and mean. This in group idea only seems important in regards of the presenter. Any audience can enjoy a routine that connect with, as long as it's sincere and authentic. Meaning that's it's deemed funny and not hateful. And the line for this was drawn back in grade school. I can call my little brother a goofus, but you better not. My little sister is mine to abuse not your's. It's really the same thing. If they are in my group I can raze them, but if you do, it may be hostile. Better tread lightly.

It's also an interesting side note that the facts of the events are irrelevant. In fact sometimes things are funnier when you know they aren't true. When it's blown up just enough to distance anyone from going through it. The Blue collar guys are funny whether they ever lived in trailers or not, because they play it up so you believe that maybe or maybe not. You don't feel that you're laughing at them so much as with them. So many things are easeir to deal with if there is an element of fiction to them. Horror flicks are good fun, but war documentaries make my stomach turn. Same thing for comedy.

What's Color Got To Do With It

For this post we read the article "Just Joking: Is Racist Humour a Form of Vilification?" I don't want to defend racist jokes, really I don't. But I was struck by the fact that one of the examples: What do you call a group of black people chained to a rock - a good start." is used in many contexts. I've always heard it said with Lawyers in place of black people. But if it's hate speech against black people, is it still hate speech against lawyers? Personally I don't find humor in skin color or ethnicity. So I wouldn't laugh at the example. But I have laughed at the lawyer version. Does that mean I'm vilifying lawyers? I don't think we should kill them but they do seem to make life very tedious.

In a similar vein, I'm polish, 100%. And I think I've heard every Polish joke. But I don't feel threatened by them. Should I? Are people who tell Polish jokes also planning violence against Poles? This may sound ridiculous, especially since there isn't the kind violent history for Poles as for Blacks. But it seems to me that anything "Black" has become the equivalent saying Voldemort out loud. If you're white, you're assumed to have no ethnicity and all the privilege. But that's not how I grew up. I grew up with dumb Pollock jokes and difficult relatives. But somehow that's all funny and acceptable. Personally I don't find any of it funny but I do feel a little annoyed at the insinuation that one joke is a form of hate speech while another set is just laughable. If you tell the joke with malicious intent then it's hateful, and if it's told off hand it's just that. I've heard my fair share of degrading jokes about women and Poles, but I've never felt threatened, just annoyed. Which for a joke is a bad effect.

Who Watches Stand Up Anymore?

In the article we read for this post I was struck by the age of the piece. The article talked about comedians liek Andrew Dice Clay and Roseanne. I think that some of the stereotypes the article pointed out are a little outdated. Clay isn't nearly as popular and humor that slams women is certainly not the norm anymore. I always chalked of the uneven amount of female stand-ups to the general male centered society we live in. I think of it in the same manner as male chefs. In a home, cooking was always percieved as women's work but in a professional setting women are scare. I don't agree but with this agenda but after a while a person becomes used to the "norm." And this is how I assumed stand up was. I do agree that "feamle" humor if such a thing exists is less abrassive as soemone liek Andrew Dice Clay. But then plenty of people think Margaret Choo is abrassive as well.

Persoanlly I likle intellectual comedians like Eddie Izzard. Whether feamle or male, I enjoy stand up that engages my intellect as well as my funny bone.