Look, I think this whole thing around Will is none of my business, so I’m not going to bother talking about what he did and how he did it.
In fact, I don’t want to dedicate a lot of time to this at all. I just have a few things to point out:
However he did it, the fact that a man defended his wife is being made into a public spectacle.
Can you imagine this happening 100 years ago? I can’t. Probably no one would have thought twice about it. And if there was a little hot temper involved, oh well, people knew you didn’t say things about other people’s wives in front of them. In fact, you didn’t make personal remarks at all, you know why? Because even if it seems like a joke, some people are going to use it to mock them, and it’s not funny then. IT was just a rule of polite society not to open people up to public mockery, and I frankly miss that rule. I have never seen it end well when it’s discarded at churches, schools, or anywhere else.
2. Whatever happened, how is it any of our business?
Think about it, are we going to make Will Smith regret his actions? Probably not. Are we making what the guy on stage said okay? No one’s talking about that?
What exactly are we getting so worked up about anyway? That our peer pressure can’t micromanage every actor in the world into the small little bubble of acceptable behavior that one of us can agree on anyway?
Yeah, so much for freedom of expression. I guess not if you’re a celebrity.
I mean, no one’s asking if the dude who said the thing should have the freedom to make such jokes about people just because he’s a comedian. I’ve never found it funny anyway. Maybe because I got made fun of for things I couldn’t help about my appearance when I was younger. Or maybe because…it’s just not funny. What exactly is so funny about people’s looks, unless they are deliberately trying to look silly? Think about it.
3. Are we all qualified to pass judgement?
How many of us are going to be in Will’s position, where our SO is being humiliated in front of other people and we have to make a judgment call about it?
Would we have the guts to defend them in any way, let alone the right way?And how many men would have kept it chill at that point?
Is Will Smith above being human, now? Is he somehow not subject to anger or embarrassment or guilt?
I’m not saying it was good or bad, again, just asking why we all think we should just say this?
Because, slapping someone is not a crime. Sorry. Maybe it’s not good…but there’s not exactly a rule book for it, is there?
4. People think it was unprofessional.
I totally agree, it’s better to be real classy and ignore your wife’s feelings being hurt so that the dude talking about it has the green light to do it again.
Again, maybe there’s another way to handle things, but we can’t always pick and choose our spotlight. Would it be right if it was in private?
And maybe the comedian just shouldn’t be allowed to say things like that, again. Isn’t that inappropriate also?
So yeah, I guess that sums up my thoughts on it.
It’s true, maybe no one cares about my opinion either. But then why should any of us care about theirs? And why should Will Smith?
I’m making a better case for leaving it alone than anyone is making for gossiping about it, which, by the way, if you are a Christian, gossiping is unbibilical. And so is publicly harming people in this manner.
I’m not standing up for Will Smith so much as decrying the whole cultural concept that thinks this is okay, it’s disgusting. And he’s just one instance of it. It bothers me in politics as well as with other public figures. Ew.
Of course I open myself up to the same treatment by putting myself on line, but that’s kind of lie the argument that women open themselves up to being assaulted by stepping outside their doors without a man.
They both have to do this to do their jobs, usually, and, just because we have to take the risk doesn’t make the jerks who take advantage of it not guilty. That sounds like something guilty people would say.
So yeah, anyone who uses the excuse that Will is a celebrity and so has opened himself up to public scrutiny as an excuse to publicly flog him for this…you’re basically using the same loci as those jerks who say women’s clothes make it okay to harass them. Hope you’re proud of yourselves.
And if that offends you…
Uh…why should I care? I’m not a celebrity.
And that’s about all I have to say about it. My biggest hope from this post is just that I got someone to think twice about why we do this, and if it’s really okay, I’m not expecting to get a whole movement going here.
I have to wonder what’s happened to my generation at times…and then I look at our influences, and it all makes sense.
While the Gen Z– Millennial crowd do seem pretty crazy, it adds up when you think what we’ve been taught and exposed to over time.
I was always the partially sheltered, homeschooled, Christian kid, but I still hear myself say things these days that people from 100 years ago wouldn’t have said…or maybe 150 years ago, the 1920s were kind of nuts too.
But one trend in the Millennial world, at least in the West, that is really concerning to me is how most of them no longer like the idea of getting married.
I always thought that the “marriage is a societal convention” line was something only people who were terrified of commitment would use to get their SOs to agree not to marry them.
I think actually that might be true, and people in their 20s-30s are all just terrified of commitment now.
We’re not the first generation of humans to have this problem, but the first in a while, and the older generation can be pretty hard on us.
To be fair, some of the reasons I’v heard do seem convincing, and heartbreaking, in some cases…and others just seem pathetic.
So let’s unpack each one–though this is not an exhasutive list, I’m sure ther’es more, but I’ve heard 3 or 4 consistnently.
1: Marriages often don’t work out and/or divorce is expensive, and usually favors the woman.
Mostly it was men saying this, but their concern is that if the wife does wnat to laev ethem, they will lose their money, their kids, and everything else.
This is by far the most legitimate reason out of the ones I’ve heard, and the only one I would probably take that seriously.
I mean, of course, no one wants that.
It is also true, Divorce tends to favor women. Whatever the Feminists say, the culture we live in paints women as the victims and in the need of the most financial support.
It is also true that many women have become so entitled because of hearing this crap their whole lives that they are not fit for marriage with a man who has any self respect. They are whiny, demanding, and immature about their part in conflict.
But, I think men should just be not marrying those women then. Here’s the thing,
If you’re going to still have sex, and have kids, and live with said woman, even if she’s not marriage material…then she should be partner material either.
If you are going to use a woman like a wife, but not give her the financial or emotional security of one, and basically say “I can walk whenever I want, and leave you, and the kids, or take them with me” then…you’r basically subjecting her to the same fear as divorce.
And someone is going to say “no, because with two mature people, that won’t be a problem.”
Well, if it’s not a problem…then marry her!
If you consider your relationship is the same thing as a marriage, but not on paper, then put it on paper.
Because it sounds to me like you are just trying to remove all risk from it. A marriage will at least make you think more carefully before you split.
Furthermore, while divorce is hard on fathers, if things did go south between you, and you are not married, then how do you decide who gets the kids, and for how much time? Is a court of law going to be kinder to a father who is not even married to the woman who bore his children?
I think adoption agencies also favor legally married couples.
The point still stands, legally, not being married doesn’t guarantee you anything if you split, so marriage, even if you have the mind frame of divorce being an out, at least will get you some rights. Doesn’t that make much more sense?
Maybe I’m missing the logic here…I just don’t know, if fathers really care about their kids, then wouldn’t they want to guarantee them at least some financial support, as the law requires. You can appeal if the woman is not holding up her end of the deal, but if you are not married, then what?
I’m not sure if the law currently allows for illegitimate children and claims on that, but even if it does, the idea seems kind of ridiculous, talking about who legally has the right to kids when they didn’t even commit to each other enough to make it legal….
Think about that.
Furthermore, if you’re not gonna marry their mom, why do you deserve time with the kids? You didn’t put enough effort into getting those kids into a stable, secure home that marriage would provide. Put whatever name on it you want, it still seems selfish to me.
2: Women are not marriage material.
A lot of men love bashing on women now, on Tiktok and Reddit, and so on. Saying that they don’t want to get married because the woman are entitled, and treat them badly. A lot of them don’t even want to date anymore.
I don’t know how else to say this delicately so….
If you are wiling to bang women who you hate, and have zero respect for, just because you somehow think that you are better than them…that makes you just as immature and entitled as those women.
If you want a whore, just say so, don’t try to pin this on women.
Granted, a lot of us are like that…newsflash, a lot of men are like that too.
So you can either take you bad experience in the past, which probably mean you have crap taste and don’t watch for red flags, and broad-brush all women, like a child would, or you can conclude that yes, you dated some bad apples, but you know not all Pope are the same, and you’re going to adjust your methods to find the kind of girl you actually need.
Case in point for me:
I have liked several guys, in recent years, my choices were not so smart. Luckily, I never got as far as dating them when I found this out, I simply was friends with them, and I realized it…
Which, by the way, is always a smart way to start, try getting to know a girl as friend before you date her, and maybe you’ll figure out real quick where she’s a good fit.
What I did learn from being disillusioned was first, that a lot of guys are pathetic, but secondly, that might just be what I was attracted to.
After being abused by my father, my standards for men were knee high, if that much. I expected them to have little to no consideration for my feelings, to blame me if anything went wrong, to ignore me whenever it was not fun fro them, and to make me feel weird of caring that they did.
And that was in a friendship, so trust me, you can spot this early on before you are intimate.
I clued in to it, Thank God (literally), and have pretty much cut that guy out of my life.
But it’s what I was comfortable with, and if I hadn’t heard much better stories form other women, I’d never have known that men are not all like that. Some are actually really good.
I haven’t found one for myself yet, but when I do, I want to be able to accept it, not think it’s just an act. Sound familiar ladies?
(To be fair, if you live in a country where arranged marriage is the norm, I imagine none of this seems relevant…just play along if that’s the case, I have to write from experience.)
I have respect for men, as men, as humans, but I have no respect for men who bash on women for stupid reasons.
Your experiences are not universal, okay?
And again, if you have only dated twits, then check your type. Maybe you are drawn to toxicity, maybe you think they are easy, and then when that’s not true, you feel betrayed.
But no woman is easy, even if she is loose. To really get into a relationship with a woman is never easy, and vice versa.
I want to reiterate that using a woman for sex who you have no respect for and you are wiling to defame publicly on the internet is pretty crappy to do. I suppose you’d say if she did the same, she was just being an entitled b-word.
And if your conclusion is that dating is a waste of time…fine, don’t date.
But it’s no excuse to let your poor judgment sour other young men on the idea of dating and actually trying to approach a relationship maturely.
Of course, women should not be giving sex to men who are not going to marry them, and haven’t married them.
If he says he doesn’t believe in marriage, ladies, run. He doesn’t’ want to risk it on you, why should you risk it on him?
Isn’t this just an excuse to cohabit with people who you are not sure are marriage material, because you can always get out if it goes wrong?
But what is the point at all then? You just want the ease of a two person household, two incomes, and sex…without binding yourself to it and risking it all?
What kind of attitude is that?
And then we wonder why the love dies and they feel like there’s no meaning in it anymore. We treat each other like conveniences, and then we wonder why we feel like we are just a convenience to them.
As I said before, divorce can be pricey.
But there are practical solutions to it, if you are really doing to worry that much about it.
You can get legal agreements about who gets the money and how before you get married, you can get contracts about that kind of thing.
Some people suggest that as an alternative to marriage…but it kind of just sounds like marriage with the financial steps, but not the moral and emotional ones.
You can have separate bank accounts, if you insist…might be smartest anyway, couples often fight over how they spend joint checking account money.
But is money really a good reason not to get married?
Making it an issue kind of makes it seem like you are treating your SO like a prostitute.
I do think couples should be clear about their work expectations before they get married. I think people should be clear about all their expectations before marriage.
I personally like having a job, but I don’t like having a full time one, so if my husband does, that would be great.
I mean, I’ve gotta do something with my time, I have nothing against women working if they want to, but I do think it’s kind of missing the point to make marriage about that.
Marriage was not instituted to provide financial stability. It was instituted, firstly, by God, and later by cultures, primarily for companionship and reproduction.
First of all for companionship.
Not all couples who get married need the financial support, and it should not be a factor in divorce or marriage if you ask me. People who divorce just to get money are terrible.
It’s a factor because we have to live, but it’s not the primary concern. You can arrange it all beforehand, but don’t marry someone if they are not okay with you providing for yourself, if that is what you want, and don’t marry someone who is not okay providing for you, if that is what you want (and men do that too, by the way, all the time). Just know what you want.
But if you rush into a relationship not being clear about that, then it was your own fault, and you need to fix it, not just dump that person. Someone will have to compromise, but it’s not enough to slit over, money should not be put above things like love, honor, and a stable family for your kids.
Why do I even need to say that? How far have we fallen?
4: Marriage is oppressive to women because they have to change their name, and it make them men’s property.
Well, that has been true in many cultures and eras, but as it is now…that’s stupid.
You don’t have to change your name, but the reason that women did was to signify a new family being started, with the husband. She leaves her father’s house.
In several cultures, married couples keep both family names, to signify this, and in others cultures, people do not eve have last names.
But marraige iexist in every culture.
So, even if you want to say that in the West, and East, even, marriage oppresses men or women because they change their name, it’s not a sold argument against marriage, just against the form of marriage in this country.
You can get marreid many different ways. You cna kep yoru name, you cn atke both names, the husband can take the wife’s aname if he wants, even.
It hsa nothig to do with marraige itself.
But if you are willing to forego the commitment of marriage because you don’t want to be under a man…
Then yeah, you probably shouldn’t be in a relationship, period.
Whether the man dominates or not (and personally is more of a factor then gender there, even in countries that are patriarchal) marriage, and relationships, require some submission to each other, some humility, some willingness to let the other person have their way.
Going into it with the attitude that the idea itself is oppressive to you is the best recipe for disaster I can imagine.
Like when men all women the “Ball and chain” I hate that.
My father used to refer to it as “having the training collar on his neck”
He actually dominated my mom, always unfairly, and didn’t do what she wanted at all. So I found it puzzling he’d compare it to that. More like my mom had on the collar, and he’d throw a fit if she stepped out of line.
I mean, in a way, it’s nice that all these men and women out themselves online.
Yeah, no one should be marrying you. Yikes!
But it annoys me that poeple applaud this.
Thee people are spoiled, selfish, and superficial.
They care more about their own convenience in marriage then they do about growth, or anyone else’s happiness.
Rom coms used to talk about how you want to make someone else happy when you love them, now it’s all about that makes me happy.
I’m convinced most of the people who get divorced and then tell others marriage is a waste of time, didn’t actually try that hard.
If you went into it with a selfish attitude, then yeah, it wasn’t going to work for you.
Some people are smart enough to realize that partway through and change, but most just quit, because we’ve made quitting easy.
And FYI, if divorce is so tough on men, why do so many of them choose it over working out their problems in counseling?
And women too, for that matter.
I am not married, but, I have actual relationships with people, ones I have to work at.
And here’s the kicker: If you don’t work on your family relationships, you will not work on your marriage one either.
We all have problems in our family, but most people ignoring them, they fight, they forget about it, and nothing changes.
That was my dad, he’s comfortable that way. That was what he witnessed growing up. He just thought we’d be the same as his wacked out family.
But my sisters and I actually want to be able to improve, and grow, and we had enough.
We have worked on our relationship with each other, and it’s much better now than it ever was when my dad was around.
I plan to apply that to marriage also.
Look, I have had moments of wondering if I’d ever get on good terms with my mom, or my siblings ever again, but we have moved beyond it.
If you stick with it, and the other person is willing, you can work it out.
Marriage should probably hit a rough patch after 5 years at the maximum, if you both are maturing and changing.
Oh, and that brings me to number 5, I almost forgot this one:
5. The person you marry sign going to change so much in 5 years. So you should not get married, but especially, you should not marry young.
You know…how young you are when you marry has never made any real difference overall, historical speaking. It’s is how mature people were when the got married. Teens have thought like adults in culture where teens have to be adults, and now we have 25 year olds who still think like kids, because they can. It does not matter.
In cultures where marriage is supported, young people can work it out as easily as older people. Younger people are more willing to learn, and more likely to compromise, if they can be made to see something is not working. They are more likely to focus on outside things, and not just their own interests, like older people do. All traits that enable growth. If you’re 35, you’re not likely to be pliable, or willing to learn.
Also, young men are way more likely to grow out of abusive/toxic behaviors, because they often od them out of immaturity, not for the power trip. And young women are more likely to become sympathetic with time, not not as demanding, because you adjust your expectations at that age.
If you get to 30 and you have not committed to anyone, you’ve had not reason to change, or realize your quirks may not be the easiest to live with, you take that into marriage, and sure, you may have less conflict…but that’s not always a sign of the healthiest relationship.
Conflict can be a good thing, if you are growing.
The time I hardly fought with my family was the time we were the most distant. We don’t fight a lot now, because we fought a lot for a while, working stuff out, adjusting, learning.
Even therapists will tell you sometimes that conflict can show you have real feelings, and the lack of it can show you’ve shut down.
Older people have less enthusiasm, but that also means they have less drive to mature. You have learned to overlook, or to just avoid.
If that come after years of growth, that’s a good thing, but if you’ve skipped that part, I have to wonder if you just didn’t want to change.
I won’t say every older couple is that way. Some people just don’t meet the right person till they are older.
My point is more that shaming people who want to get married young is foolish. If they are willing to put in the work, why shod they wait? Chances are they will get less wiling with time, not more willing.
At 23 I already like to have things more my way then I did at 18, but at 18 I lacked confidence in my own worth also.
I think waiting more time for me was better, but I do not want to wait till 30. I had good reason to wait, my dad mess ed me up good.
But if that is not the case, I see no reason by normal, people, with supportive families who are 20 or 21, and willing to treat marriage with the seriousness it deserves, should not get married.
It’s true, kids do rush into it, but that doesn’t mean it the age that’s the problem, it’s more of that lack of preparation beforehand.
Like going to marriage right after college, if you have never been responsible for anyone, never had to cook and clean for yourself or others, and never had to be on a budget and independent of your parents, that is stupid. Sets you up to be dependent on them in your marriage too, and to expect your spouse to take care of you, not for it to be mutual.
But if you have been prepared, and have made your own decisions before with success, then if you want to get after college, you should. It’s worked for many couples.
And I should say also, you can’t put all couples into one box.
Some people are not ready for marriage at 20, but that does not mean everyone isn’t.
I have had my share of snarky comments form older people about my mental readiness for anything. I have proved time and again that I can make better decisions than my grandparents did, and my parents, often enough.
Given how their marriage ended up, I’m inclined to think I could pick a husband better than they did also, but even if I picked a bad guy, now, at 23, is it any worse than my grandmother who picked bad mean 3 times in a row, even older than I am?
If you can learn from your mistakes, that is what matters.
I suggest either being friends or dating for at least 2 years before you marry, just so you really have a chance to see who that person really is.
But what matters is character, the willingness to change.
It is true, we change a lot over time.
And people who are commit to each other adapt to those changes.
It’s like people who cut off their family once they move out, clearly they let change affect their commitment.
But some of us put in the effort to talk and hang out still. Those people are more likely to grow with you.
This is all stuff to watch out for.
But as far as marriage itself being a bad idea, it is not, and it has never been.
That is alie.
And if people are questioning a thing that has worked across every culture, every time, and every moral group, then I question how big their heads are. Flouting thousands of years of experience because you think you’re just too special for marriage, well…yeah, says a lot about you.
Until next time, stya honest–Natasha
[PS: If you think I left anything out, feel free to shoot me a comment, I wouldn’t mind revisiting this subject. It’s one a lot of people are wondering about now.]
One of the unsung perks of babysitting in this country is that you get to use people’s streaming accounts even if you don’t have them. I’ve watched a crap ton of Netflix and Disney Plus because of babysitting.
That’s how I watched Vivo…which is a better movie than Encanto, bite me.
Funny because Lin Manuel Miranda worked on both, I just think Vivo’s plot and themes suited his talents better than a Disney Girl musical (since now we aren’t even pretending they’re princesses…although this movie might as well have been about a princess.)
I’m not going to hate on Encanto, it was an enjoyable ride, but after watching it, I do think it is inferior to its predecessors.
I’m sure all of you are too nice to hate on me for saying that, but if I went on a different platform, I think I’d start a riot. Everyone seems to love this movie.
Well, it’s mediocre, sorry, not sorry.
I won’t deny the animation was gorgeous, a joy to watch. The songs were…predictable. The only one I thought really stood out as creative lyrically was the “Pressure” one. Then, Imperfect was okay, and “WE Don’t talk about Bruno” was impressive editing-wise, but lyrics were a little weird, I thought.
But I’m not much for modern musical movies, to be fair. I like old ones better.
i have before unashamedly said that I like Disney movies–some of them–and that Frozen is actually my favorite movie, for personal reasons. See: Why a DP movie is my favorite.Why a DP movie is my favorite part 2. I don’t think it’s the most amazing movie ever made, but it stands out form other Disney films, I’m not the only one who thought it has a different vibe, wrapped up in a Disney package, it still somehow felt unique. Thought he haters will never admit it.
Encanto is a beautiful mess, that is my honest opinion. I was interested in the plot while watching it, and the 3 year old I was watching it with loved the music. But I kept waiting for the movie to make its point…and by the end I was just…non plussed.
Encanto basically has two or three over arching themes, and it tries to bring all of them together at the end, but it doesn’t finish any of them. The ending was one of the most rushed I’ve seen in a Disney film, and the characters were not well flushed out. We only get depth on Luisa and Isabel, and it’s dropped after one song.
Abuela’s character being the cause of the magic disappearing was predictable, I called it form the beginning. But that wouldn’t have been bad. I thought it actually added to the idea that families often miss the obvious when it comes to their problems. It’s true in my family, for sure.
I actually thought they were going to do a Brave thing, and make it both the older and younger women had pride and selfishness, and that was the cause of the rift. And the magic of the family was tied to their unity.
The movie implies this, but doesn’t say it.
I could put that down to a wish for subtlety, except every other theme in this movie is blatant and shoved in your face, as with most kids’ movies, so why they would hesitated to spell it out for us, if they actually intended it, I don’t know.
I don’t necessarily mind blatant messages, I think kids need things to be spelled out for them, and adults who watch kid content should be prepared for that. But I think you can do it tastefully and creatively. Just singing it to save time is not tasteful.
The imagery in this movie is probably its best feature. The lights, the candle, the sand, the cracks.
I kind of thought Bruno’s character was less impressive than he could have been, he was exactly what I expected, and the goofy, kooky character seeing the future and then hiding…well, it’s a little old. But it’s not bad, so it’s more of a personal wish than a criticism.
What actually made me mad about this movie was the ending. The first half was quite good, but it was like they ran out of run time. Isabel and Mirabel get over 20 years of disagreeing, (or 18, or whatever it was) and it takes 2 minute of one song for them to suddenly understand each other?
I was the scapegoat and my sister was the golden child, it took us months of disagreeing, and years of tension before that, to work out our differences. Especially when our dad poured gasoline on the fire.
And another thing, I found it stupid that only Mirabel was yelling at Abuela at the end. If Luisa and Isabel were really that miserable, seeing Mirabel do that should have just burst the dam. Especially for Isabel.
Also the magic was so poorly explained.
I know that magic does not always need to be explained in a story, I actually don’t like it when it is, like, We didn’t need an explanation for Elsa’s magic–and the one we got made no sense.
But in this movie, the magic disappearing is the whole point, so that is the time to explain how it works, the entire point of most of the film is Mirabel trying to understand the magic, so explaining it was totally necessary.
And what is explained…nothing!
I mean, I guess the magic relies on the family’s…bond? But then why doesn’t it crack every time one of them fights? The one lady with the weather powers should be having cracks every 10 minutes. Isabel and Mirabel should have been causing issues all along. Then Abuela’s obsession with perfection might actually make more sense.
Or how about this, make the fact that Abuela herself actually has no gift, and just guards the candle and house the reason she doesn’t like Mirabel. Mirabel reminds her of her own mortality, and humanness, and we tend to project our insecurities onto other people. So when she’s yelling at Mirabel, she’s really upset at herself. And Mirabel annoys her by not being as stressed about it as she is. I’ve known that to happen to many people in real life, myself included. Misery loves company.
This is almost implied in the movie…but never enough to be sure it’s actually what it’s saying.
Also, the conflict of this movie is set up poorly.
We’re supposed to be wonder why Mirabel has no gift, right? Well that question is never answered. Ever.
Then we’re supposed to wonder if the gift is becoming a curse…
But the thing is, Mirabel’s mom is a really nice lady, and supportive of all her daughters, and so is their father. Isabel is so driven to be perfect…why?
I can’t recall her ever actually being told she was doing something wrong. Maybe she just wanted to avoid it ever happening, but most people aren’t afraid to fail until they have failed in a painful way, and we never see her do that. Perfectionism comes from not being able to control things when you were a kid, but we get no such story with Isabel.
We never see Luisa told it would be selfish to take a break. She just assumes it.
We’re meant to think Abuela made them think this way just by her example…but even if that is true, no one ever questioned it before? And why do none of the men feel this way? They seem carefree, and happy-go-lucky. No pressure there.
And while the townspeople take advantage of the family’s gifts, they aren’t ever pushy about it.
So why are these two girls so driven? Isabel says she was going to marry the guy for the family…but they never push her to do it, they just assume she wants to marry him. If she’d ever spoken up about it, I’m sure they’d have been happy to push Dolores forward instead. Why does it need to be Isabel?
And by the way, Dolores character had the potential to be so much more compelling. Imagine if you could hear everything? Everything anyone ever said about you? That sounds like a curse to me. Maybe that’s why she tries to be invisible, so people won’t talk bad about her.
Would make relationships difficult, and relaxing. She’s shown to be jumpy, but she doesn’t get her own song, and she doesn’t ever get a moment to explain it. A total waste of potential. I’d say her life is way harder than Isabel’s.
I mean, when the main conflict of your story is your MC just isn’t special enough….what the heck movie? Is that what counts as drama these days? Her family loves her, and the one person who actually is hostile to her, Isabel, is not even in most of the movie, and resolves the conflict in 3 minutes…yay!
Mirabel is all like “I can’t embrace Isabel!” and then 5 minutes later “Oh my gosh, I was so wrong about her!”
Uh…you weren’t really, you just didn’t know why she acted that way, she still acted like a b-word. And perfectionism is no excuse to bully your sister, Isabel. How about an apology?
I mean Isabel could have said she envied Mirabel her freedom to do whatever she wants. Built on the trapped by your gift thing…but nope.
And another thing, if Isabel is so stuck…why doesn’t she want to try something other than growing flowers? Her whole rebellion is spraying herself with colors and growing cacti…who in the heck said she couldn’t grow cacti? Cacti are useful, heck her mom could use aloe to cure people, everyone would be all over that. And she has a whole room to experience with crazy flowers in, and no one else seems to care…what exactly is holding her back?
I mean, Abuela only cares when it becomes convenient for the plot, she never reprimands Isabel before then.
Movie, stop expecting me to assume domestic abuse, actually show it if you want to use it, you coward!
You now that just ticks me off about this film, and every other kids’ media I watch these days. Domestic problems are assumed. No on’es family is actually good, no one is actually happy, it all hast o be fake. You can bet if I see a nice character, I’m going to find out they have skeletons in their closet later in the story.
And while no human is perfect, not all of us are as royally fricked up as the movies imply. Sometimes we just get frustrated once in a while, and guess what, we move on! Some of us actually deal with it in a healthy way. Geez! What is the problem Hollywood?
I think it’s on purpose, the idea of contentment just doesn’t sell, so every character has to have a dark side.
Frozen kicked off this trend–but you know how Frozen made it work?
Because we actually see Elsa’s powers backfire, we see her parents tell her bad advice, we see her fear of herself grow–the movie accomplishes this in 10 minutes. We all perfectly understand why Elsa is afraid, how it affects her, and that Anna is unaware of it.
Then when Elsa goes berserk, we know why. It’s not random, we see the causes.
And her problems instead of being over in 5 minutes, take a whole movie to work through. And are revisited in the shorts and the sequel–which are not great, but at least they aren’t delusional enough to say Elsa is never going to doubt again. Of course she will, but she now lets herself be helped, that was the difference.
Where is this in Encanto? Or should I say Donde esta en la cinema Encanto? (Pretty sure I said that wrong, but my Spanish is not great, and the constant switch in the movie was not as charming as they thought it was. I was just left feeling like the whole thing should have been in Spanish, or English, pick one.)
Nada! Nunca! It’s not there. You won’t find any deepening, or further introspection of any of these characters. One song, that’s it.
That’s one of my problems with the movie.
The other one is the Magic itself, and the Miracle. It’s never explained.
And why Mirabel does not have a gift. She wanted to know.
I think the movie’s biggest mistake here was that when Mirabel went to get her gift, the door began to form…but then it stopped.
If she was truly just not meant to have one, fine. But then why did she start to get it and then it stopped? The candle changed its mind? Hmm?
Sure seems like something went wrong, not looking at Bruno’s excommunication or anything.
And if the family splitting is what lead to the magic cracking, than it would have made perfect sense that Mirabel’s lack of gift was because it weakened after they sent Bruno packing. Like, it literally seems like that’s what they are implying.
Mirabel even sees the same cracks as Bruno. Which could have been taken as maybe she was going to have the same gift as him, because he wasn’t around, but because he still is, she couldn’t get it, and it broke.
Then restoring Bruno the family, and fixing the house should have fixed her problem. But she still has no gift at the end…even though she restore the magic, so she has magic, but no gift….because logic….
You have all the set up to make this make sense…but no pay off? Nothing.
Because oh she’s just special enough without a gift…
(How can not being special be what makes you special? It’s a logical fallacy.)
Well if that’s true, why restore the gifts at all. If it really had become a burden, then just let it go, accept change.
Wasn’t that the message? If you hold onto the past too tightly it crushes the very people you were trying to protect…I thought that’s what they were saying.
But I mean, i’s Disney, so of course the Magic shouldn’t have disappeared at the end…but Mirabel still can’t have a gift because reasons.
Even though it clearly show she didn’t get a gift because something went wrong, setting it right doesn’t give her one…why? She doesn’t want one anymore?
I fail to understand you movie.
I thought they all should have either lost their gifts for good, or never lost them at all. Maybe they just could have corrupted, been twisted, like in Frozen. Because they were used wrong. That’s more true to real life anyway. We don’t lose our talents because of stress, but they do become less pure.
So in the end, this movie has two messages. Or three really. 1. You don’t need a gift to be special, because not being special is what makes you special. (Cure the Incredibles rant about celebrating mediocrity) 2. If you put yourself into one box, it will crush your spirit, it’s okay to have more than one interest and to take a break. 3. Holding onto the past is bad. Embrace the future. (As long as you do it by not forgetting what made your family special in the past and reigniting that flame….get it? Because it’s a candle, we’re so clever).
How did anyone like this movie’s ending? I get liking the songs and story, but the ending? It makes no sense. None few these three messages is finished. Nothing is explained, and there is no truth. Everything goes back to being exactly how it was, except that Isabel goes disco tech, Luisa takes naps, and Dolores gets with the guy who’s about as deep as a kiddie pool.
Mirabel is not a different person than before. And the town is the same…so yeah…
I really thought there could have been something really good there. Heck, even all three of those message together would have been okay, if they were finished. But they aren’t. There is no point of resolution.
An apology is not a resolution if the problem is that complex. That worked in Brave because the mother -daughter conflict is present in the whole movie, shown to be the core of its problems, and is explained as the way to resolve them. Merida humbling herself makes sense, because Pride was her problem.
But the whole family conflict in this movie is so shaky. Not everyone is unhappy. The problem are so minor that literally two conversations fixed them, and Bruno comes back with no fanfare whatsoever, and Mirabel isn’t even the reason.
Mirabel was actually mostly useless, she spends most of the movie making the problem worse, and in the end is the reason the magic goes out…so way to defy negative expectations there, movie.
Guess she really was the bug in the system…and maybe it deserved to crash and burn…so show that. Don’t just make it all go away because apologies!
Perhaps I am oversimplifying. But it was still poorly done.
Encanto is, in my opinion, a product of our culture.
Fewer and fewer movies and show have any definite meaning now. And fewer and fewer people seem to notice it. We are becoming incapable of discerning structure and payoff in a story.
As long as the label diversity is stamped on something, we swallow any amount of lazy writing, and Hollywood knows we will.
Encanto is a badly written movie that would not have stacked up to a 90s Disney Movie, and they have very weak conflicts usually, but at least hey are clear. Ariel may be kind of a bratty teen, but at least I know why. I know why Aladdin wants to be a prince, even if he’s a liar. I know why Mulan is going to war ( and that is one of the best Disney movies there is).
I don’t know that with Encanto. It would have taken like 1 extra song, and 5 minutes to explain, but it’s not there. They could have cut the unnecessary songs and put in actual story, they could have not rehashed the begging like 3 times for padding. It was fixable. How did someone not say “Uh guys, we didn’t answer any of our own questions in this script…can we like…fix that?”
But no one cars, becuase diversity!
I can’t say I see what a magic house really has to do with Columbian culture. Or how themes that are so clearly modern are really representing what makes it special. Kind of the running joke of representation in Disney is that it’s…you know, based in fictional countries, so you can’t really represent real ethnic groups…
I mean, people complain about how all the old movies had white characters…but they were stories form Europe, of course they could have white characters. Whenever the movie were set in other countries, they changed the ethnicity…I never really saw the issue. People just like to complain.
And I don’t mind if a movie is set in a Mexican, or Colombian culture, if it’s good. I enjoy movies like that.
But I won’t approve bad writing just because it was packaged in a nice look, and fun songs.
I’m sure it would be fun to watch Encanto, but it has no meaning. It is gutless, it doesn’t commit to any one message, because it doesn’t have to to be liked, and the creators knew that.
But I think this in underminding our chilrend’s abilty to tell when there even is a emssage in osmeitng.
Implied messages that are not stated are usually called propaganda. Subtle, but propaganda. When a message is boldly stated, it opens itself up to criticism.
But if it’s vague, you can’t really criticize it. So it is gutless, but the implicates are enough to squeeze it by the virtue signalling SJWS, so they think it has meaning.
If you still think I’m being too harsh, I challenge you to take Encanto, RayaandtheLastDragon, and Moana, take a pen, and write down each main element of those movies. each character’s conflict…and then how the movie resolved it.
I defy you to find a way it really was fleshed out. It’s implied, that’s all. Implications don’t help us in real life. People need actual ideas if they will change.
But if you can feed yourself with colorful, but empty visions of meaning, you can fool yourself into thinking you’re being cultured, but you are really being conditioned.
Encanto is not evil or bad in of itself, so much as it is just lazy, but what scare me is it never would have been praise so much a few decades ago, and now it’s haled as top tier.
A Goofy Movie did family conflict better, sue me.
Well, I think I have ranted enough, this movie is not horrible to watch, but I can’t endorse anything it says, as it says nothing whatsoever. That’s my verdict. Watch it for a good time, but don’t expect any substance, and you’ll be fine.
Try Brave or Frozen if you want the exact same message but with an actual message. Or any of the renaissance era movies.
Mostly because I think the perspective when you start a fast and when you end it is totally different.
I mentioned before that I have a hard time with the prayer part of fasting.
Well, I decided to do something about that finally, at the urging of the Spirit, I think. And start committing more time each day to God.
So far, it’s not anything spectacular.
But I was watching this YouTube video the other day after I had already started, I’ll try to link it here:
But this lady is talking about how 1st century Christians had it rough, and how we in the West, 21st century are spoiled, I’ve heard it before. I’m tired of it, you know?
But then this part of the video, at the end, that she impressed me with is where the 1st Century Christian makes this summary.
Basically pointing out that we have the Bible, we can meet freely in public, and we can openly have our faith…but we don’t read the Bible, we shirk church, and we hesitate to tell others about our faith. And our pastors often encourage this attitude instead of rebuking it.
And this lady says “I (the 1st century Christian) can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think I have it better.”
And I thought that is just so true.
Of course, as many commentators were quick to point out, there’s many countries where it’s still deadly to be a Christian. We in the West can feel like the world revolves around us.
I believe God let us be the safe haven to persecuted Christians for a purpose, so we could support them and give them refuge…but a lot of us don’t even remember that it’s our job. That Paul told us to remember those who suffer for Christ as if it were us ourselves.
I suppose it would do no good to worry about it, but, I do think, I could be more aware of it.
Of course it’s getting more dangerous even in the West, but we’re still a far cry from the East and Middle East.
But it’s a more mature attitude to realize that for all that, it’s better to be real about your faith, even if you’re suffering, than it is to have no real faith, and have it all.
Why do we do this, in the West? We squander what we have, and waste our oppertunities.
Not everyone may be a door to door evangelist, or a street preacher, and nowadays, that isn’t received so well anyway.
But tagging Christian Instagram posts and tweeting Bible verses is not exactly witnessing.
I’m sure it blesses some people, but it’s not witnessing in of itself to do only that, and not get more personal, and that’s where we seem to freak out.
I remember this line from “The Devil Wears Prada” where Nigel confronts Andy about her superior attitude towards the fashion industry. “Most girls would die to work where you only deign to work.”
Couldn’t that be said of us? “Many people would die to do, or say, what we barely deign to do or say.”
I don’t mean to be too harsh. Many of us here have found ways to influences others and minister to them even in our wealthy and overstuffed culture. And I’ not hear to disparage that. What is this blog but my attempt to use the internet as a way to tell people about God, instead of just distract them from Him.
But we can’t deny that, at the very least, we brush things off much more easily than our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world do. We examine ourselves less, and we compromise with the world more.
Case in point:
Pre-fast, I’ve been exposing myself to more and more sexual content in fiction on the net. I don’t do it on purpose, but I read stuff that has it, and I can’t always scroll enough to skip it. (They ought to make some kind of button for that.)
I don’t think it really affects me…at least, at first I thought that.
But sure enough, those thoughts end up in my head more.
I find actually, that for someone like me, the biggest trap of sexual content is not that you start to lust after the characters or actors involved, I don’t, but it’s that you start to read it into everything. You assume it’s there, even when it isn’t. And your mind supplies the subtext.
Even if you don’t like it, you expect it, and it becomes part of the experience for you.
Post-fast, I read something last night that was like that, more than I expected it to be, and I felt so disgusted it surprised me–because I haven’t been feeling that repulsed for a while.
But I just felt like God was looking through my eyes at it, and it embarrassed me, even if I didn’t intend to see it. I scrolled right quick, but I still felt dirty. And yes, I repented, but it was still jarring to have that experience again. In a way, though, it was relief, at least it still bothers me.
Sexual content is tricky. You can be disgusted by it and still find it addicting just because of the way our brains and bodies are wired. Why else do we like cringe comedy?
And we like that judgmental feeling of being above that, but still viewing it.
I know a lot of Christians who fall into that trap.
The good news is, if that’s all it is, you can get out of it fairly easily. Just cutting out the source will usually do it.
A real sexual addiction is much harder to kick, but not impossible, with God. I’m thankful I’ve never had this problem.
Some people would argue that it’s not bad as long as you’re not engaging in it…I don’t think that’s biblical.
But I give into temptation to let it slide.
And I honestly think, that’s more our temptation as young Christians. The devil doesn’t tell us to think it’s good, not at first. He just tells us to let it slide.
Let it slide when you see LGBTQ content that you know is unbiblical, but it’s popular, so don’t knock it.
Let it slide when you see a sexually charged scene, because it’s not like you’re doing it.
Let it slide when people are expressing attitudes that are anti-Christian in a blatant way.
And i don’t mean that they just aren’t Christian themselves, of course we’ll encounter that, but some creators go out of their way to pollute and corrupt Christian ideology when they write about it, I do think that’s dangerous. If you don’t know your bible especially, you’ll believe anything people say about it.
I remember I was watching this Tiktok compilation of people who left Christianity, out of curiosity, thinking maybe I’d understand it better.
And, it was full of bitter, ignorant people who clearly didn’t really know what Christianity taught at all. Their church either failed to explain, or they weren’t paying attention.
And hey, sometimes it’s that you’re not paying attention. Even the worst churches are bound to get something right, I find most people who complain pick and choose what they listen to from a church, instead of listening to all of it. My father could go to a church that taught basically what his Church taught, but find the one point they didn’t express the same way as him, and make that all he heard. And one time I remember he said he didn’t like a worship song’s lyrics, and then misquoted the lyrics to mean something that the song did not actually say. I was astounded by how he could convince himself it was bad, when we’d all heard the same thing…I thought.
One person in the compilation mentioned reading the whole bible all the way through (which in one sitting, or even over a few days, I found questionable, even I can’t do that and I read very fast) and saying she found so many contradictions.
I’ve read the same bible all the way through more than once, and I was like “What contradictions?”
A lot of minor discrepancies are just misunderstandings, which if you research actual scholars, can be cleared up very easily. They can also be mistranslations, depending on what version you use.
And other contradictions the Bible itself will explain, and acknowledge. They are not really contradictions. The God of the Bible is a collection of paradoxes, much like humans are. He’s Just and Merciful. Stern and Kind. And we’re told that we will perceive Him through the lens of how we ourselves act.
Which is just true of world views in general. Ever notice how prideful people think everyone is proud, and selfish people think everyone is selfish? And kind people tend to see more kindness in others. It’s because we look for what we put out.
Maybe I’m just too biased to see the problems with Christianity, but I’ve heard a lot of criticisms launched at it that only proved the people didn’t understand what the religion actually teaches, and only believed some twisted version of it they got from someone else. I mean, if I want to criticize Hitler or Marx’es philosophy, I would read something they actually said, or did. Not just what their enemies said they did. That’s just smart.
All this to say, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them worth listening to. They could be lazy, ignorant, and stubborn. Taking criticism of the faith fro people who actually study the topic is more useful.
But I think we’re a little too trained to listen to all complaints against Christians, from everyone, regardless of whether they are the kind of person who’s likely to be honest about it or not.
To get back to my original point, I think due to all this confusion, we are worst off than early Christians in some ways. Though we have a lot more opportunities.
But valuing God for Himself is the best gift we can have, and that is the thing we struggle with. We devote our time to so much else.
Now, when I started my fast, I only stopped doing one thing. I kept all my other distractions the same.
But you know what? I stopped wanting to do them as much.
Funny, but watching movies, and reading fics just didn’t seem quite as important without this other thing I was already sacrificing. I still did it, but, I just didn’t feel the need to as often. I began doing things outdoors more, interacting more with my sister instead of just sitting alone doing my own thing.
My energy improved. I felt tired at first without the high of my addiction, bu over the last week as I replaced that more with outside time and time with God, and have recover form being sick, I feel much more energized. My mood is better.
You see, this is what I was saying in my other post. When you give up even one thing, you realize how many things you don’t really have to have in your life. It feels like you do, but then it’s gone, and you find there’s always something else you can do. We don’t rely just on one thing.
Fasting makes me a little more disciplined that before, even if it’s for a short time, but usually, after a fast, discipline comes a little easier for a while, that mindset sticks with you for a bit. Eventually, you do lose it, that’s why fasting is supposed to be a reoccurring practice.
My family is also nice enough to encourage me to stick it out, and not to give it up. Which is always helpful. And to help me occupy my time in other ways.
I find that even doing other things, my thoughts center more on God just because I am aware that I am not doing something, for Him.
(I hear this works in marriage too, for making you feel more loving to your spouse because you know you’re doing or not doing something for them, even if they don’t know. Try it.)
Perhaps the most embarrassing thing I’ve realized though, is that my lack of interest in God is mostly my own fault.
When I get bored with Church and worship and prayer, it’s because I have filled myself up with other things.
I remember the Avatar movie (the blue one, not the travesty of the kids show’s live action one) where the Tsuhik (not sure I spelt that right) says to Jake:
“It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.”
While that movie is far from perfect, I do think they nailed one thing about having a simple, spiritual life. Jake later says “They don’t want anything.”
Funny, when you are filled with Spirit, you really don’t want a lot from the world.
And when you are filled with the world, you don’t want a lot from the Spirit.
We can’t have both.
I think, once upon a time, God made it so we could. The world was made to be pure, and being full of our lives here, and our lives with God, would have been one and the same.
And someday, God promises, He will put it back that way.
But till then, the world has fallen to evil, and if we fill ourselves with it, we turn from God. It happened to Solomon, the Wisest man to ever live before Christ.
And if I think I’m beyond that, I’m kidding myself.
Fasting does humble a person.
I’m not saying I’m a new woman, I think that’s more for God to say. I’m saying that I just have remembered somethings I was letting slide, as you might say.
Not all change is dramatic, you know.
Man, we are so hooked on that in church though. The breakthrough, the breaking off, the strongholds, the mountains moved…
Which is all good, in its time.
But so much change is quiet, gradual, or if it sis sudden, it’s private and not something to yell about until we’ve walked it out.
All my moments of real breakthrough were alone, or silent, or quiet. I have always wondered why.
But when I saw others have big, loud moments…but remain unchanged afterward, I started to wonder if Gd maybe did it that way on purpose. Maybe when it’s big, an d shiny, we focus on that too much, and forget the actual change.
A change of heart happens in an instant, perhaps, but it happens inside. And it’s better to show that with how we act before we tell someone.
We want to hear it right away now. We ask people what they feel or think right after we pray and talk.
But, usually people need more time than that to know if something really stuck with them.
There’s a resewn God is always telling us we have to be faithful, i. e. consistent with our religion. We can’t just do it every once and a while and expect it to change us.
I’m only saying what hundreds and thousands of other people say in the church…and maybe we all say it because it’s true.
So hey, if your Christian, and you’re not liking what I’m saying…oh well.
And if you’re not Christian and you read this anyway, that’s amazing! I hope you got something out of it.
You know, I kind of hope I am making some Christians uncomfortable by saying we need to quit it with the big showy stuff so much. Good.
I know I do have a lot of readers from out of country, though, and maybe you live somewhere where what I’m saying couldn’t’ possibly apply on a cultural level.
Still I think the truth of faithfulness is something all of us need to hear, even if we’re somewhere where our faith is tested everyday. Because it’s just another kind of discouragement.
Suffering and abundance are both tests of our faithfulness. Who knows which is really harder? All I know is we have to face whatever we have, now, if we really want to please God.
I hope I will keep this going, and learn more from it. I’m only human, but God is God.
If I can end my fast, but still maintain some discipline and boundaries, that’s a net gain.
Okay, this isn’t the most serious topic, but sometimes you just gotta blow off steam.
I don’t know if the people who read this blog are really the type to read Young Adult or Teen novels, but some of you watch anime, and that’s kind of the same crowd, so…
When I was younger, I didn’t really read these books, I actually hardly read any teen novels till I was already almost an adult. My mother wouldn’t have let me, to be honest.
I barely got to read Christian Romance novels. And those were mostly horrid.
I couldn’t even tell you the first teen novel I read now, that’s how little it stuck with me, they are more my sister’s thing anyway.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the genre, it’s usually some type of romance, coupled wither with fantasy, action, or horror like plots, but they are more vanilla than the adult counterparts…but usually still pretty bad.
For whatever reasons, Twilight made vampires and werewolves a popular part of teen fiction, and so are witches, and fantasy things.
Or you have your typical high school story about popularity and being yourself.
A lot of YA novels are set around adult characters, but they still act like teenagers.
And most romance stories, even for older women, follow the exact same tropes as teen novels…but with more sex.
The whole hting disgusts me.
The only ones I generally read are fantasy ones that sound interesting plot wise until you actually read them, and it’s just more tropes and angst.
When I was still a teenager, I got a good look at how teens write because I joined this online forum called the Young Writer’s Workshop.
The stories I read there were total garbage for the most part, a few might have had potential.
What I found disappointing was that they were all exactly the same. I could understand bad writing from inexperienced writers, if it was in every genre, and had some diversity…but all the books had the same style, themes, and ideas in them.
I was shocked. My own writing had never resembled anything like this at all, even at its worst. I had more originally when I was 8 than these stories usually had.
And I’m not saying that just to brag. My early attempts at writing were not good, but I was at least trying to come up with my own story.
I’m aware that these young author probably did come up with the ideas themselves, they just executed them in the same way.
And I think I know why, most of what teens read now is either fan fiction, romance , or teen novels. They don’t read classics, or philosophy, or non fiction.
I grew up reading all of that, I was homeschooled. I knew C. S. Lewis’s writing better than I knew J. K. Rollings. And that’s not even a teen novel.
I have attempted to write some of these tee story plots in the past, I find them kind of interesting as a premise. A lot of the ideas have potential, if you don’t take them too seriously.
A lot of stories, for example, try to use fairy tale races to explore racial problems in our own world. The Hunger Games famously tried to reflect back our society’s superficial obsession with entertainment, no matter how morally bankrupt it is.
But the Hunger Games annoyed fans most when it became the most like a teen novel, and focused on a love triangle and teen drama when it could have focused on the more important elements.
There’s this assumption in teen or YA fiction that teenagers are not going to care about a story unless there’s some drama in it. That they are incapable of higher thought,, and higher aspirations, we just want to date and dress up and play games, and maybe save the world on the side.
A lot of teens buy into this.
When I was 12-13, my mom was encouraging me to read books like “Do Hard Things” by Alex and Brett Harris, and “A Thomas Jefferson Education for Teens” by Shannon Brookes. Books that told me that the teen years are a time to prepare for bigger things. That I could still take them seriously.
That had me trying to start my own ministry and teach people while I was still in high-school.
I didn’t succeed, but I learned a lot form trying and failing. I learned how hard it is to inspire people, and how hard it is to make them believe in something. And that coordination is difficult, and so is organizing something.
I also learned that people rarely take teenagers seriously when they say they want to do something serious.
I’m now in my 20s, and still getting disrespected by older people for being young. My generation is not looked highly upon…but then when are young people ever looked highly upon by older people? You’ll find accounts of older people knocking the younger generation in every part of history books.
I like what the Bible says “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young,” I live by that.
Anyway, to get back to my point, books aimed at people my age or a little younger, are really, really insulting.
To be fair, a lot of teens I knew in high-school were just about as basic as these books made them out to be, a lot were angry too. And would get mad at me if I said that things should be different.
I think I wasn’t that good at delivery back then, I was young and immature too. And while I’m not old enough yet to have all the perception of old age, I’m old enough to know better than I used to. I can now present myself much more clearly and politely.
However, I don’t think my lack of social grace was the real problem back then, teens don’t really notice that as much as adults do. You have to be old enough to expect to be treated with some amount of respect, before you get offended over it (think about that for a second.)
I think it was just I was raised a different way. And they couldn’t understand me, and I couldn’t understand the pressures of their lives. Now that I’ve been to college and gotten a taste of it…I frankly still don’t see the appeal, but I do understand the social pressure to blend in more. People are vicious when you don’t agree with them, and the younger they are the less they have empathy about it.
I’m so glad I was homeschooled, to be honest. I see what my public schooled cousins go through and I’m relieved I didn’t have to deal with it till I was an adult.
But even with those problems, the stories we feed kids are not helping anything.
I mean if all we give them to think about are superficial, light stories, that is all they will think about.
You know while I’ve been fasting this month, I’ve been thinking about all the ways we distract ourselves in the West.
What makes us different from other parts of the world–though not completely different– is how many ways we can distract ourselves.
We all can afford it, subscriptions, splurges, junk food. all of it. Even the poorest people in our society still have phones, often enough. And TV.
Despite what critics of our country like to say, we don’t really have it so much better than everyone else. I mean, as a whole we do, but within that framework, a lot of us don’t have easy lives. For personal as well as community reasons. You don’t have to be poor to suffer, and wealth doesn’t get your happiness. Just makes you run out of excuses for being unhappy faster.
Teens in the West don’t have easy lives, but they do have over-saturated ones. Over saturated with corruption, propaganda and lust, and vanity.
Every prosperous nation has turned into a corrupted one, in history. People get cocky whey they don’t have to live day by day to survive.
I know that I’m a part of all this, but at least I’m aware of it.
And the books we write, and read, and make movies out of, they feed this.
Our entertainment quality is plunging every year. “Representation” has replaced original, deep plots and the message of personal fulfillment has replaced any other message of meaning in life.
There are a few gems here and there that defy this, but they are getting fewer all the time. When I find them I want to re-watch and reread them over and over.
One thing I thought while I was viewing the 90s X-Men show was just how different they wrote heroes back then. It’s only been about 30 years since the first season dropped.
In 30 years, most of these characters would have just been angsty, morally grey individuals. Who would all question if what they were dong was worth it, and be mildly or heavily depressed. Even the live action movies veered more that way, and most of them weren’t made that much later than the show, until the reboots, which are somehow less depressing than the old ones, but also less well acted, so…
( I still like them better, but I like happy stuff.)
Watching that show was like going back in time, I can just barely remember from when I was a kid, shows and movies that used to try to make character real. They had emotions that weren’t all angst and sadness and anger and doubt. They had diversity of worldview’s, and unlike now, they could explain why they did.
I’ve written before about the lack of strong ideology in movies now, how good characters can’t defend goodness as well as evil characters defend evil.
I may be nuts, but I think it’s deliberate, it happens too often to not be on purpose. I think that Hollywood wants us to see goodness and hope as emotional, weak position that people hold just because they refuse to give up. And all of us root for because we prefer it to the alternative.
But the evil position is what really makes sense, and has factual evidence to back it up, and we just prefer no to face reality.
Movies and anime tell you that you don’t want reality, you want entertainment. You want sexualized content, and fluffy feelings, and drama. You don’t want something real.
You’re weird, in fact, if you don’t like that.
Funny, all the Youtubers I watch express disgust with this very aspect of media when they review movies and shows. They yearn for meaning. Even the ones who make fun of it the most.
Even Nux Taku, a rather famous anime YouTuber who likes hentai, openly, will get into the deeper themes of something, even when, in my opinion, they aren’t really there.
We like to find meaning.
Hollywood knows how to get people to watch things that are garbage just because it checks the right boxes for them, and book novelists know how to get teens and young adults to read their material by luring them in with superficial appeal.
But I for one get tried of the lack of depth. What’s the point of this stuff?
I know, someone is going to say “But it’s just for fun, to relax.”
And, I get it. I want that sometimes too, just a dumb movie or book to read.
That’s okay once in a whle.
But I’m talking about all the time, like, kids who never read anything else, or watch anythig else.
I was surprised entering highschool not only by what people did watch or read, but what they didn’t.
I had a huge library of books and movies I liked that no one else had ever heard of except other homeschoolers. And I was flabbergasted. Why would you only read one kind of thing?
But that’s how it was. The brainwashing worked.
I don’t think it worlds completely though. Some people still want depth, and if introduced to better things, will learn to like them. I have hope.
My concern is those people are fewer and fewer the more saturated we are in the bad stuff. We don’t foster that trait in people, it makes them harder to please, and for such a commercialized culture, we need people to be convinced to buy things, not think about them.
Because of how I was raised, I actually avoid products I see advertised. I have an aversion to commercials and ads, they make me not want to buy something. I prefer to read reviews by real people. The few times I’ve broken that streak, I didn’t like the result.
I won’t say it’s wrong to listen to ads, a few are probably true, I’m saying it’s unwise to be so pliable.
Once you learn how to see when people are buying and selling you something, you become a lot harder to fool.
I think I got off topic.
But all this is really on topic. Teen novels are just a product of what I’m describing. Buying and selling a lifestyle and moral standard to teens that is so much less than what they are capable of.
Teens have shaped history many times, most important historical figures started what they did in their teens. There are exceptions, but it’s not the rule.
We are capable of high thought, and high achievements…and yet we soak up this superficiality, like as sponge, and we thing that’s what we re.
It makes me sad.
I take every chance I get to introduce people younger than me, or my age, to deeper ideas. Sometimes I think I’m getting somewhere, other times I think I’m not.
But we have to try, adults. It’s a worse sin not to try, than to try and fail. Some of them are bound to get it, they are still human.
That one thing to remember too, teens and young adults may be exposed to a lot of crap, and dumbed down by society, but they are still human beings. Humans can change, grow, and adapt, that’s what makes us human.
You can be brought down to the level of a slug, but the same person can be elevated to a prince or princess. Our state of mind is not set in stone at any point in our lives.
Some people may just be dumb, but I think most of us are just untrained. I’ve seen little glimpses of depth even in the people I thought were mostly shallow in my social circles.
I think it’s getting people to believe that about themselves that’s the trick, and to care about it. WE all want meaning, deep down, but most of us hide from that desire and pretend it’s not there.
I’m not writing this to put down teens or young people, by any means, I still am a young person. I just know I’ve been blessed to have the chance to see all this at an early age. I started this blog for that exact reason, to inspire younger people to look for depth and truth in whatever areas we can.
You see embracing that is the key to wisdom in life. A wise person learns from everything around them, whatever is available, they can even learn form total trash, if they try. A foolish person avoids learning as much as they can. And they accomplish very little in life.
I know I am fighting an uphill battle, that people often don’t really want to be wise…but this is what I’ve got. This is what I do. I pray it resonates with someone out there.
Maybe that’s why I keep reading these books, I’m looking for signs of hope. That other people are trying, and looking, and succeeding.
One author I could recommend is Megan Morrison. She’s modern, but I have found all her books to have depth that shocks me, considering what I usually see in that genre. They hold up. The best one is “Grounded” which is just a better version of Tangled, if you ask me. (I like Tangled too, but this book is so full of imagination and depth that a short movie just can’t capture.)
I guess all this sounds a bit sentimental, but I don’t know, why do any of us teach or inspire if not to try to raise people up to a higher level? It’s frustrating, but the most rewarding when you succeed.
They say being an artist is hard, but being a teacher has to be the hardest job in the world just about for high risks and low rewards. Along with being a pastor, probably.
So in summary:
I hate these books because they are shallow
I read them to find hidden gems
I think we need to expect more of young people
I think we need to expect more of ourselves
I guess that wraps it up, until next time, stay honest–Natasha
Lyrics Well I was young Well I was young and naive Because I was told Because I was told, so I believed I was told there’s only one road that leads me home And the truth was a cave, on the mountain side And I’d seek it out ’til the day I die I was bound I was bound and determined To be the child To be the child that you wanted And I was blind to every sign that you left for me to find And the truth became a tool, that I held in my hand And I wielded it but did not understand I was tired of giving more than you gave to me And I desired a truth I wouldn’t have to seek But in the silence I heard you calling out to me
At first I didn’t think I’d like him, I’ve seen the flirty, player boy character one too many times on shows and movies to really be into it anymore.
But as with the other characters, this show surprised me by making him seem real, and likable, and he’s actually my second favorite male character.
I’d have to rank the characters as:
And of course, Nightcrawler holds a special place in my heart as the two time side character. It’s impressive how characters that show up only twice in the whole show were still iconic to fans, that’s some good writing.
Suck it Avatar. We don’t need to make them almost die to be relevant.
(Kidding, I like Avatar too, guys. I just don’t like Jet…)
Anyway, so about Gambit.
Full disclose, I’ve never read any X-men comics, I honestly probably won’t just because there’s so many comics, I wouldn’t know where to start to get the really good versions of them and I can’t spend that kind of money hunting through it all. Spiderman was my peak comic book experience. Nothing else has really felt as cool since.
So I have only the show’s limited focus on Gambit to go by.
But the show does a good job with the other characters, so I’m going to assume he’s depicted pretty accurately and analyze him.
I was asked specifically to talk about his hang ups.
Now that be a tricky question, no?
Forgive my poor Cajun accent in writing.
The fact is, like many characters, Gambit is not much for talking about his issues. I think he thinks he’s the strong, silent type.
I actually like that it’s not exactly true, and his idea of himself is probably not actually his character.
Gambit turned out to have a surprisingly soft, compassionate side, even from episode one where he takes it upon himself to protect Jubilee after only just meeting her. He can be a bit too flirty and rude at times to Logan and the others, but he’s always there when they need him.
Ironically, Logan complains about Gambit’s attitude, but acts the same way, must be one of those like forces repel things.
The show doesn’t hint at any thing between Gambit and Rogue until the episode “The Cure” where Logan drops the bomb that Rogue kind of likes him.
Could have fooled me up till then…the show kind of just threw ships at us, but luckily, they were usually likable…usually *cough, JeanxScott is the worst ship *cough.
Well, naturally, Gambit takes that as an invitation to start flirting with Rogue every single scene they’re in together.
Of course she finds it annoying, but secretly charming, because he’s not afraid of her.
I mean, sure, she wants to slap him in that over-confident face sometimes, but, it’s refreshing.
And of course, it leaves us more mature audience members asking ourselves “But why isn’t he afraid?”
It’s not even that Gambit is impervious to the dangers of Rogue’s power, he gets zapped one episode and is kind of mad about it, but it doesn’t stop him from hitting on her afterward.
Oddly enough, he seems to drop the whole issue of being able to touch her at all, and just keeps pushing for a relationship of some sort.
I don’t know if this was stupid or genius on the show’s part, sticking the flirty ladie’s man with the untouchable woman, and saying “hey, this is a great idea!”
My sister says they are kind of a thing in the comics too…I’d say the same irony is there.
I think that some of the appeal to Gambit, might very well be the danger. He seems like that type of guy. Other girls are too easy for him to get, Rogue’s a challenge, both with her power, and with her constant rebuttal, but not quite refusal.
And some men like a challenge, right?
(Wish I could find one)
I think I said this before, but how funny is it that his name is Gambit, and it’s a gambit to try to be close to someone like Rogue.
She’s got a lot of baggage, even if her power wasn’t an issue.
They do get one kiss one time when her power has been neutralized by some device, (it doesn’t last), and Gambit says he loves her, something he never told anyone before, according to him.
This is an interesting detail.
In his backstory episode, some blond b-word claims that Gambit has been with a lot of women
(To which we all say “we know!”)
But “loves only her”…which is not true, but okay, they were engaged once…given that Gambit left her at the alter and ran away, I guess it wasn’t that real.
Maybe he did lover her in a way, but in his words, they were both young, and he was scared.
Well, he sure stepped it up, huh? Went form crazy blond woman to country girl who’s not able to touch people…don’t know if that’s brave or delusional.
I do ship it, for the record, but I mean, anyone ever wonder how in real life this stuff would work?
Gambit at least seems to think that whatever he’s got with Rogue is special.
Rogue however, doesn’t really seem to trust his words. As she continually rebuffs any attempt to get closer to her. She’s willing to sort of date at a distance, but not to commit.
You’d think Gambit would be the one who could commit, but honestly, he seems pretty devoted, all things considered, she’s the one who can’t settle down with the idea.
Gambit lets Rogue have her space, because being a stalker wasn’t cool in the 90s, I take it. But he’s still persistent.
So the question for all of us is, how serious is this guy?
That’ the question about Gambit at all times though. No one in the X-Men really seems to trust his intentions. They all turn on him as soon as Bishop accuse him of assassinating someone. Though Gambit clearly had no plans to do so, and was framed. But the others seem to feel their suspicion was justified, even so, since he never tells them anything about himself.
I mean, if my life history was being part of a gang war/cult that worshiped some forest goddess and paid a weird tithe to her, and almost married the opposition gang’s nut job…I might hesitate to explain that to the X-Men, too.
Though Storm would probably get it, she was worshiped once. Actually, she says she knows Gambit the best, maybe that’s the reason. She feels normal to him.
Rogue stands up for Gambit, but is not especially confident in him.
Gambit is kind of hurt by this, but doesn’t seem to hold it against her so much as he just accepts no one will trust him and he’s on his own.
Actually, Gambit believes in no one and nothing, and doesn’t trust people, as Logan says, or Scott, I forget who was being the biggest prick in that episode.
In the episode with Nightcrawler (which is by far one of the best in the series, I unbiasedly think), Gambit professes that there’s no God and nothing out there for anyone.
I find that funny since he used to pay tribute to a goddess, but then again, maybe he thinks God is indifferent because of that weirdness. That spirit kept them warring against each other, and hurting each other, maybe they’re better off on their own, in his mind.
It’s kind of sad really. Gambit has been burned by his family, as his brother betrayed him and jumped him into the gang. His ex was nuts and tried to off his friends and his brother, and their deity was kind of vindictive…
And then the X-men are suspicious of him too.
Maybe his perspective that he’s a loner makes sense.
So why does he pursue Rogue? Is it because he knows it won’t happen, so he’s essentially alone still?
My theory is that at first, yeah, that probably was it. It was exciting, and there was low emotional risk in his mind because of her “issues” with being close to someone.
I’m trying to think of a PG way to say that they can’t have sex…and I can’t, because I know everyone is thinking it even if I don’t say it.
It is kind of a roadblock though, what is marriage without sex right? And romance for most people has to involve it at some point.
I think Gambit actually fell for Rogue for real along the way.
She is pretty easy to love, even as a fan. I mean, she’s sweet, feisty, and caring, what’s not to like about Rogue. Her crippling insecurity is her biggest problem, but it is understandable, and she’s not what I’d called Toxic over it. Just confused and scared and sad.
I’m surprised Gambit was the only one, honestly, but I guess the show thought Jean was the one who’d have multiple men after her…because she’s got the personality of your average pick me girl in a Wattpad fic…or nay other rom-com…
Actually, it is harder to write a triangle around a girl who’s actually got a personality, because it’s easier to see who’d be a bad match for her, people won’t get behind a ship so easily if the chemistry is in questions. Look at Avatar. The only thing fans complain about is how that show did ships. (For good reason, not a single one has chemistry except possibly Sokka’s.)
Gambit probably just flirted with Rogue at first because, well, that’s what he does. But sometimes you pretend something long enough, you do it for real. Rogue is just easy to like…and then before he knew it, it was real.
That’s my guess as to why he didn’t get bored of it.
I mean think about it, she’s fun to tease, but any man who didn’t really like her would get tired of teasing a girl who he’s never going to be able to get in the you-know-whats of.
But no, it just goes on forever, apparently.
And one has to wonder what point Gambit sees in it, honestly.
I’m not sure he really thinks that hard about it, actually. He seems like a guy who acts more on impulse most of the time, and habit. I get the feeling that in his mind, he likes who he likes, and it don’t matter really what the obstacle or realistic expectations of it are.
But there are moments where he shows a bit more real emotion about Rogue, that indicate he’s not just kidding.
He’s quick to worry about her, quick to notice if anything is bothering her, and quick to get jealous.
Jealous of what, really, what can she do? She can’t cheat on him.
But he seems actually jealous of her affections and attention.
I think it’s interesting.
Rogue raises all kinds of issues about our own insecurity, if we pay attention to her character. And that’s cool, I really like that.
But Gambit raises the question of what really is and isn’t love. What are we really in a relationship for?
You know, the Bible doesn’t give sex as the first reason to institute marriage. That sounds kind of wrong, actually.
I mean, who gets married just so they can have sex.
I really hope no one reading this answered that in the affirmative…
Sure, sex is nice, and important…but it’d be a stupid thing to base your relationship off of.
Honestly, I think it’s great being a virgin and just not having the whole sexual compatibility thing on the table, I get to focus on what really matters, not just hormones.
I’m sure none of us believe Gambit is in that exact position.
But who knows, maybe he’s had enough of superficial relationships, and is realizing they just don’t make you happy, they aren’t real, they don’t satisfy.
Rogue is too much of a challenge to have it not be real, if your’e going to keep pursuing her. Maybe that’s the appeal.
Maybe he likes the idea that someone has his back. It’s rare to find any friends as devoted as the X-men, and Rogue in particular never would abandon a friend. Sometimes to her own detriment, but there it is.
We all like to feel special, Gambit may also find it flattering to be preferred by someone who has no reason to impress anyone. I mean, I can’t lie, it would make me feel pretty special too.
To be honest, I think what makes the ship so interesting is simply that’s it’s not that easy to figure out.
I think that it’s more real, because there’s probably so many factors that could go into it.
The thrill seeking aspect of it is balanced out by there also being a trust aspect.
One line Gambit does say to Rogue that’s interesting is early on when she reminds him, none too politely, that she put someone in a coma the last time she kissed them:
“Maybe it’s worth it, no?” He says, with a very punch-able face, I have to say.
I can’t really blame Rogue for going off in a huff after that.
Still, if you unpack it, isn’t that the question?
Rogue has no self worth whatsoever when it comes to love. She believes she’s not worth anything, no risk, nothing.
I have to wonder, even if she lost her power, would she accept herself? I think she’d still push people away. She’d find some new reason.
I did the same thing. Without my father around to bully me, I found other ways to look down on myself.
Gambit seems like the last person to take love seriously out of the team, but maybe, just maybe, he’s kind of hit on something.
Maybe it is worth it.
He might be cocky, arrogant at times, and often stubborn…but, love isn’t really about being perfect.
It’s not always the most innocent people who actually understand love the best, sometimes if you’re too nice, you can’t accept other people have flaws, and you don’t know how to love them.
Church people know this struggle.
But on the other hand, if you’ve hit the branches on the tree of poor life decisions…then maybe you’re a little easier on people.
I think the show raises the same question to the fans as Rogue has.
Can we really trust Gambit? Is he for real? Or is it just some joke.
Rogue seems convinced she’ll wake up from it one day, and will look foolish for ever trusting it.
Sure she likes him, but she doesn’t want to love him, because she gets hurt then.
But it also hurts to be strung along. Gambit is not one to complain, but…
Come on, it would bother anyone.
It’s sort of like Rogue is saying that just love is not good enough, she won’t be satisfied without the touch aspect being resolved. Though she claims to be okay wither herself, we all know it’s not true.
Like I said in her post, how important is touch to a romantic relationship?
After I wrote it, I was reminded of the stories I know about people who are paraplegic, some all over their body, and who are still married.
People who have cerebral palsy, or some other disease, often can’t move normally.
There was that famous guy who had no legs and no arms, but got married and had a kid.
I’ve heard that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife weren’t able to be intimate after a point because of his disease, and Eleanor said that there was still love even without that.
Hormone driven fans are often obsessed with sex and kissing and touching in shipping. Rogues’ a real challenge, most people probably just prefer to fix her problem, in fan fiction, and not deal with it.
I think that her problem is probably fixable, based on the show’s logistics.
But I think that’s not really the point.
Rogue is not going to get love just because she can be touched. If someone can’t love you without that, they don’t really love you. That’s the hard truth.
Sure, they might like you and want to get with you, but that’s not love.
In our over-sexualized, lonely culture, it’s hard to imagine any love without sex.
Or some form of touch.
Anime kind of has this stigma both about kissing and being intimate until the relationship is further along, and also about even using the words “love” and showing care for someone.
We’re left starved both emotionally and physically from watching it. I think that’s why fans rush to the perverted side of it so quickly.
Where you have no emotional connection, the sexual seems like an appealing substitute…but it’s empty too.
Love is not about sex, and it’s not about giddy feelings. That’s a nice part of it, sure.
But I kind of like that with Gambit and Rogue, it really can’t be about that. Even if, someday, her problem was resolved, it still couldn’t have been about that.
If Gambit showed hesitancy, we’d all have to hate him, even if we understood it. Not many men, or women, would want a part of that.
And it is sad…but, as I said, real life couples have to forego physical intimacy sometimes.
It’s almost a crime in people’s eyes now to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it’d be okay not to have that.
I mean, if you met the love of your life, they suited your personality, they were loyal, caring, and funny…but they just couldn’t have sex…or touch you…would you abandon them?
I remember story I heard on reddit of a guy who married a woman who was asexual…that is, she could have sex, but didn’t enjoy it the way other people do.
He said it was almost a deal-breaker, but he was glad he stuck with her. They had a great relationship, and she’s a loving wife…that aspect is just not as prevalent, but he’s learned to live with it. She has to make sacrifices too.
I’m not saying I’d choose it on purpose, but you know, maybe it’s is worth it.
It would be weird to want that, upfront, but it’s not weird to accept it, if you love them.
I’m not sure I can say for sure if Gambit is deep enough to think that out, but he does hint at it.
The guy who does’t trust anyone is still willing to gamble with love.
I feel like he’d be the most shocked if it ever worked out.
In the end, Gambit and Rogue are too similar. They are drawn to each other because they both think no one will love them.
What keeps them hooked is that the other person never quite ruins it. They rebuff, and argue, but they stick together, and drop hints, and there’s something deeper there.
It’s not really the tease of romance so much as it’s the draw of being loved itself that has these two caught.
It’s like “what if they did love me?”
It seems like a 10 to 1 chance against it, that it would end well.
But Gambit is willing to roll those dice, because really, what does he have to lose? The X-men only get a few chances in life for some things, you’d better take them.
Rogue maybe doesn’t see it that clearly, but she’s still pulled in by it.
They are also opposites, Gambit is willing to risk it all because he sets little value in his own safety, Rogue is not wiling to risk anything because she exaggerates the importance of her own danger to others, and thinks she’s worse than other people.
Sticking them together was a crazy idea because they repel with their hangups, but they also attract.
And, it’s a gamble, really, trying to see how it would end.
I tend to always think erring on the side of love is better. If we don’t have love, our lives are empty anyway. Love is risk, but it’s more of risk not to have it.
But some people don’t feel that way.
I think the show itself couldn’t commit for that reason, and I don’t know if the comics ever did.
Superhero fiction tends to be afraid of committed love, something about it seems alien to superheroes, their lives are dual, masked in deception, usually.
The X-Men were always an oddity in Marvel, because they didn’t hide their identities, and live regular lives managing their powers. I don’t think there’s a DC parallel to it.
The X-Men could have relationships because they acted more human. Superman needs no one, Batman refuses to need anyone, and many others just have too many issues and bad luck.
X-men can have diversity in how tragic their stories are and how hopeless they seem, so you can root for them with more hope.
But in the end, it’s still a superhero show.
The main thing is how we’d answer the question ourselves.
What part of love do we value the most? Why do we want companionship?
How we answer that is what makes for a good foundation for romance.
Less of a buzz maybe, if you pick true companionship, but it lasts longer. And it helps more.
And with that thought, I think I’ll end this, until next time, stay honest–Natasha.