Nature, Parenting, and raising kids in a “different” lifestyle.

When someone asks me “Why would anyone want a child to live with gay parents? Is that the right thing for them to learn what family is about from?”, I don’t hesitate to say “I’d rather they live with a gay couple who love them wholeheartedly and teach them how to be good human beings than have them raised by a straight couple who beats them or left in a foster system that provides them with no stability for their adult lives.” But after answering that last night, I had a bizarre dream that led me to think that it’s more than that. I never want a child to live in a family where they are so incredibly afraid and ashamed of their natural genetic disposition, that they kill themselves, torture themselves, or harm themselves and others with them just because a -parent- can’t deem them worthy of living.

What is a parent? Really, let us delve into that core issue first. A parent. In the scientific sense, it’s a breeder, sure, but even science (particularly zoology) has also taught us that a parent is a nurturer who cares for its young without the prerequisite of having the exact same genetics. We’ve seen lions nurture gazelles, hippos raise pigs, pigs raise kittens, and so on. So, to base nature on the concept that being gay is not natural, and that a gay person does not deserve to exist among straight “normal” or “natural” people, is like saying “That lion is wrong for nurturing that gazelle.”. But what’s wrong with that statement? Here’s what is wrong with it. With that very statement, a human being has just asserted that the natural course to take is for that lion to eat that gazelle, and as that lion should eat that gazelle and eliminate it, it is therefore our responsibility as “straight humans” to eliminate gay humans. Pardon me, if I find that a tad animalistic, abhorrent, and ultimately inhumane in every sense. Human is to be humane, one would hope. So to eliminate other people because they just don’t fit with our “pack” is the exact opposite of being human. If it is the exact opposite of being human, then that would make us nothing more than animals inside. If it is to be believed that human beings are more advanced and skilled; intellectually and morally; than animals, then that would mean an animalist would not be natural. If a human being with an animalist disposition isn’t natural, we would be seen as having to eliminate it. And so it goes in this constant circle of who is more natural than who else, and ultimately we all end up dead because something, someone, who should have been a parent, a nurturer, chose to be an ‘unnatural’ animalist.

Oh but wait, you say it isn’t a choice, to view gay people as unnatural and reject your own child? It’s the will of God? Interesting. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not judge. So many different commandments that point out it isn’t our place to do those things. Most importantly, if you are an animalist, you aren’t capable of making the conscious decision to believe in anything beyond what you can see right in front of you, because it wouldn’t be natural.

Are we sensing a theme here? I am. Stop using ‘NATURE’ as an excuse to alienate, reject, harm, or in any other way traumatize any other human being of any sort. Do not use nature as an excuse to keep a child from having a family. Do not use nature as an excuse to propagate your own fears and attach them to others. Do not use nature as the basis for any of your unnatural hatred.

No one is saying anything about changing your way of life so that it fits in accordance with someone of a different disposition. What IS being said is that if you’re uncomfortable, get up and leave. You should not expect other people who are perfectly okay in said circumstances to change everything around them to appease just you. No matter what you THINK nature is. Because let’s be honest, you aren’t nature. You don’t speak for the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and if you believe in God, I hate to break this to you, but you don’t speak for him either. Don’t bring a book written by other human beings into it. Use your brain, your humanity, and your empathy to figure out where you really stand. You’re human. You’re in a human situation. Deal with it.

Superman: Heroic Immigrant.

When Henry Cavill was cast as Superman, there was a great deal of controversy based on the fact that the actor was actually British and many people felt that Superman was a huge representation of American ideals. The idea that people would get up in arms about such a triviality didn’t phase me much because access to the internet has made me acutely aware of the reality that some people will rise up against anything, so long as they can start some sort of debate or stir the pot. I didn’t care to weigh in on the debate because it seemed pointless.

                        

Today, as we ate lunch, my husband brought up the fact that he’d kind of watched Henry Cavill’s career blossom, over time and that the actor really was most suited for Supermans physicality. As I sipped my caramel machiatto a thought came to me suddenly, due to remembering the controversy. I set down my cup with it’s cute little snowman and as typical Captain Obvious, I blurted out “I don’t get why people were so angry about him being cast as Superman. I mean, Superman was an immigrant, too. He was Kryptonian. He was just fighting to save the country and planet he landed on.” and my husband said “He just happened to land in Kansas.”.

This would be Planet Krypton. (At least as depicted by an artist by the handle yowan2008 on DeviantArt)

  And this is Earth as would be viewed from outer space. They are rather different in appearance, aren’t they? Hmmm.

This has probably been addressed by other bloggers or critics, but I won’t focus on Henry, specifically here. I’m going to divert the conversation to the one people really buzz about in the comic book world. I’m digging into the traveling roots of the Man of Steel.

As most of us know, he was born on Krypton and was sent to Earth by his parents to be spared the eventual downfall of his planet as well as to show them “the light to show the way.”. He landed in Kansas without ever going through the proper immigration paperwork and was adopted by American parents who also never really bothered to go through any paperwork. Now, kind of understandably, this wasn’t done because when you walk into an immigration office and say “Hi, this little boy was dropped into my fields in a pod and I believe he’s from a different planet.” said kid would be ripped out of your arms and placed in foster care while you get sent to the loony bin. Most people don’t react well to news like that. As an adult he never went through that because he would also have been tossed in the bin and he’d risk exposing his powers to people who may not have very good intentions.

We willingly accept this as reasonable explanation for disobeying laws put in place in order to protect countries and the societies within them from possible ‘damage’ brought on by undocumented immigrants. The reality is that we accept it because so long as he seemed good and was willing to take blow after blow, hit after hit, for a world that wasn’t even his, it was totally okay for readers to ignore what in real life they often abhor. But let this truth be blunt: Superman was NEVER and NEVER WILL BE a nationalized citizen of the United States of America. Not even of this planet. Not so long as he hides his own reality, and I think that if he ever did openly walk out and said “I’m from a different planet and I’ve come to help you.” (if this were happening in real life) most humans would freak out and reject him. Because it would appear that so long as it is in secret and as long as we can claim to assume he is just an abnormally gifted human who is from our own planet and of our own nation, then it is okay if he doesn’t fill out a couple of sheets of paper and go through the eternal hassle of payments for processing, background checks, etc.

Interesting. So, it’s not okay for a British actor to play an immigrant from space because that immigrant wears two of the 3 colours on the American flag and happens to live in the United States. It’s not okay for an undocumented immigrant who works hard, pays anonymous taxes, and tries to educate their child about adapting to different environments and always giving back to your community, no matter where you are, to be safe and work towards that citizenship in peace? It’s also totally not okay for any country to treat these people like welcome visitors in transition, who may be trying to improve their surroundings while also trying to improve their own lives? Right. That makes perfect sense. Stomp your feet and holler about an actor from another country playing a fictional character from another planet, because apparently, that character must solely remain in the possession of American actors. He, being of strength, power, and flight, is an American human, when it is convenient. But what if it weren’t convenient? What if he wasn’t an idealized fictional character?

What if people viewed Superman for what he really was. A heroic undocumented immigrant. Would people still be up in arms wanting to claim him as an American? Would Henry Cavill playing the character ever have been an issue?

There’s something to think about. Maybe instead of fighting over a fictional character, we should be taking some of the things we idealize him for and apply them to our own lives. Maybe we should be little heroes, immigrants or not.

Steampunk: When a subculture gets turned into profitable sex culture.

  There is an unavoidable fact on the internet. If you can think it, chances are someones already making pornography of it. Let’s face it, that’s what happens when mass media gets its hands on any fad, hobby, or interest. People want to cash in on it.

Recently, while browsing on Facebook, I noticed a really talented Steampunk fashion designer advertising another page she has. I thought “Oh, awesome! More cool steampunk stuff.” and happily clicked the link she had provided. Now, to be fair, Kato has always been rather liberal with how she works the Steampunk fashions she advertises. I’ve never had a problem with that, because after all, Steampunk is supposed to be this audacious and fantastical idea of what a technologically advanced Victorian era would have been like. Chances are, had women had the advances in technology at that time that Steampunk imagines, they’d probably be these fiery and rebellious creatures that Steampunkers like to portray. Nothing wrong with it at all. I was, however, really surprised to find that this insanely talented person who had so many other skills before her, would choose to go nude for the entire world to have access to. It’s her prerogative. That much is true. I guess in a sexually liberated world, as we live in today, it’s perfectly reasonable that some women will choose to take the reins and do that themselves, instead of letting men dominate that industry. I guess the part that struck me most was just how unnecessary it all felt.

I also sort of felt like there was one more thing which had a bit of purity in it, and was loved for all these crazy and fun reasons, being turned into a sexual cash cow. I mean, really, taking the term Steampunk and liberally applying it to a bunch of pretty girls taking off their clothing… well, it’s not really about the subculture. It’s about the girls with their boobs and their exhibitionism. It’s another way to get famous on the internet. It’s another way to fit into yet another cliche. I guess I have to confess that that irks me. It’s like a girl holding a baseball bat and wearing a baseball helmet, calling herself a Major League player, all in the buff, for pay. Big woop. You just discounted everything else you’ve ever done that was ever worthwhile. I guess I just have little respect for women who have talent and skill in a unique profession like being a seamstress or jeweler but choose to overshadow their skill with their skin. Sure, you’re pretty. I’ll give you that. Some might say gorgeous. That’s fine too. At the end of the day, though, I still view it as selling out your abilities.

Does this mean I’m a prude? I don’t think so. I don’t see the value in turning yourself into a product, when you’ve got the skill to create tangible and interesting stuff that people want without you having to go nude for it. That’s my prerogative. Just as choosing to go naked is theirs. Just don’t label it as something it really isn’t. That’s where the offense comes in.

How do you guys feel about women making pornography using a subculture title to gain fame from it?