Tuesday, May 26, 2009

I stand by the video

I disagree with ETC's assessment as veterans or other military personnel as smug. I'd argue that most are quite modest, if anything, about their role in public service, and that it is other entities that use them as political or other fodder. Ironically, if you will permit me to share another roommate episode, the dickish comment I alluded to yesterday was exceptional to this concept:

He got in late on Wednesday, and the following awkward conversation ensued:

RM: So, Wendy, do you see how hard your military is working for you?
Wendy: Huh?
RM: Well, I just got in. I've been at work since the early morning. I only got to leave a half-hour ago-- I was briefing my boss.

Now, that was remarkably smug. Do you hear teachers saying, "do you see how hard your schools work for you?" Firefighters? Day care providers? Doctors? EMTs?

Also, I almost said, "do you know how hard everyone else in this country works to fund the military?" and "do you know how much work goes into trying to get the military to f* up less?" You won't look long for a mention of, for example, "stunning incompetence.

You can see, from what I just wrote, that I agree that there's an institutional smugness around the military, but it rarely comes from the very people it purports to honor, who, in my general experience, are not smug.

As for the video itself, I think we're both saying the same thing: the video is funny; it's funny enough that we posted it to our respective blogs. ETC took issue with the title of my post, "Truth." As I'll explain below, that wasn't meant to convey truth in an absolute sense; I meant that the video resonates, in the same way the SATC episode did: that episode is legendary because it struck a cord... because enough viewers know moms like that. Of course it's not a reflection on all pregnant women or all mothers. Gina and I have often talked about how manufactured the mommy wars are, since the vast majority of moms and women are happy to live and let live. However, as with the republicans, and many other large categories, the squeaky wheels, or squeaky sanctimommies, often define the larger category. I don't think anyone--or anyone reasonable--thinks all mothers are sanctimommies. ETC mentioned 'scared,' but there's also the issue of insecurity: the grass is always somewhat greener, especially in the early days of childrearing, which are heavy on the diapers and spit-up, and often light on the adult conversation. Insecurity breeds self-righteousness. For example, last week, an advice columnist at the Post (Carolyn Hax) printed a letter from someone who asked how to politely respond to people that inquired as to when she and her husband would have kids, when the answer was 'never: we're not interested.' She got a lot of hate mail along the lines of, "you're so selfish-- you'd rather enjoy your comfortable lifestyle than bring another person into the world." And I bet the bulk of those people, in addition to being self-righteous assholes, are seriously jealous of people they see as living the good life while they're going through the less rewarding stages of parenthood.

Nor do I see a valid analogy to other, hypothetical demographics, particularly the one ETC suggested, because racism is so much about power dynamics-- that's why that Stuff White People Like can be funny, even though it's not universally accurate. Is it women bashing women? I think bash is too strong, perhaps because I'm not, nor have I ever been, pregnant. I have not designated myself the arbiter of what is or isn't offensive to anybody else. I can say for myself that if, for example, observant Jews made a video making fun of "cultural Jews" I would probably find it unnecessary, but I don't think I'd be offended. On the same note, I'm not suggesting that the video is sensitive. Sensitivity is not a prerequisite for comedy or social commentary. Besides, pregant women are a temporary category, rather than a demographic. Which brings us to my next point: You'll wear Manolos again.

It's okay/possible/understandable, etc. to want a boy or a girl and still appreciate that the most important thing is the health of the child. I appreciate having a non-leaking roof over my head, but I still love having a wall-mounted pot rack. Please, no one take that analogy any further than it is meant to go: I'm not equating one's house, and its structural soundness, in importance to one's children and their health. The point I would like to make is that you can understand what's really important and still hold preferences for less crucial matters. The other point I would like to make is, regardless of what preferences you may have, it's impolite for other people, especially total strangers, to ask expectant parents potentially loaded personal questions.

I restate my case: the video is funny. It resonates, because enough mothers are sanctimommies. This is not to say that all mothers are sanctimommies, but if the song went 'some pregnant women are smug,' it wouldn't be funny.

2 comments:

Hans Mundahl said...

While I think you are probably exactly spot on as usual, I get stuck in the first bit by the thought of EMCs. I mean what if there were a real and pressing need for Emergency Masters of Ceremony and what would they look like if they were smug? That image just derailed the whole rest of the article for me.

etc at Fierce and Nerdy said...

I agree with many of your points and would like to agree to disagree about others. However, I would quibble about your War Vets comment. There are those vets that accuse men who haven't joined up of not being real men, b/c they haven't "served their country."(McCain quite famously used a derivative of this argument while campaigning against Obama). And, of course, there's the non- (physically) wounded homeless vet trend of wearing their uniform while panhandling as if to say "You should give me money, b/c I'm a vet."

I'm not saying that most vets aren't humble. But I would say that there are enough "bad apples" to make a song about it and that it wouldn't be a youtube sensation, b/c most people would probably consider it disrespectful. However, pregnant women aren't accorded the same consideration. And I wonder if that's fair.

After all we have no statistics for how many smug vets feel that men who haven't served aren't real men. And we have no statistics for sanctimommies. What makes one group a funny target while the other one isn't?

BTW, why do I feel like I'm at our shared undergrad again? Loving the back and forth.

P.S. - politeness is really subjective. One person's intrusive question is another person just trying to find a conversation starter. I've been thinking about doing an article about this, b/c there aren't any rules when it comes party conversation. And you never know who's going to be offended by what.