Asphalt allies, Vol. 1

Our country is set up under and around a massive asphalt grid. It seems to act like its own microcosm, with its own language and customs, or even like a rogue regime, with its own special legal status, where your vehicle is an extension of your person, where the ground is public but we all scoot around in our own private me-bubbles. Most of us deal with it on a daily basis, whether on foot, on bike, on board, or in car. This should allow for wicked empathy between people: it's one of the only things you may have in common with the public people milling about around you. And yet we not only let cultural mores of dominance and submission leak in through the panels, we seem to revel in them, amplify them, take them to their utmost extremes. Drivers hate walkers. Bikers loath cars. Pedestrians take the right-of-way they've traded for their protection and efficiency and wield it like a kite shield of invulnerability. Everyone's the victim, and everybody ELSE is to blame. Why don't we all just choose to give it up?

Of course, it really isn't that easy. I'm as guilty as the next guy when it comes to asphalt incompetency. I've forgotten to check for bikes when I'm driving. I've failed to stop at stop signs when I'm biking. I neglect to look both ways enough times and end up having to spring across the street instead of walking. And yet I get just as frustrated as my victims when someone around me does the same. 

I could add to the problem. I could, for instance, complain about the woman who cut me off not once, but twice, and then faked a left turn, scraping me off on a stoplight as I was driving home from class. I could find all sorts of things to bitch and moan about. But instead, I'm going to talk about something that made me happy. Instead, I'm starting the Asphalt Allies series!

I'm going to talk about bumper stickers!!! I am still slightly conflicted about this matter. I can see how it can be douchey and presumptuous. I can understand how they can be construed as covert symbols of dominance and aggression. Yet seeing as I have five stickers on my bumper, I clearly am veering towards the "approval" camp. I've got halfway decent reasons, too. For one, I think that any form of self-expression should be exercised. If it's socially acceptable to walk around wearing messages proclaiming love for your favorite band, political candidate, or social cause on your body, then it should be acceptable to slap those same expressions on your bumper. (Some would argue that such clothing isn't actually socially acceptable, and to them I offer a challenge to argue the point with me.)

Secondly, I think it takes at least some courage to stick your beliefs clearly and prominently on your most expensive possession and parade it around town. I don't think that bumper-sticker-related vandalism happens too often, but I definitely think a car is more of a target for a random act of criminality if it has bumper stickers. And, of course, the more extreme the bumper sticker, the more extreme the reaction. Don't see a lot of KKK bumper stickers, do you? (That might be the Midwesterner in me making assumptions, though...)

More than anything, though, I think that in the long run, the balance of emotions produced by bumper stickers seems to fall squarely in the "positive" realm. It is a very utilitarian equation, the one that ends in bumper stickers=good. Now, this could come from the fact that I'm currently living in a town that is very friendly to my beliefs and ideals. It could also be that people who feel the same way as I do about issues are more prone to putting bumper stickers on their cars, and they are more likely to put more than one on as well. However, it seems to me that the ire raised by bumper stickers one does not agree with is outweighed by the sense of camaraderie generated by stickers one does agree with. On most issues, regardless of the opinion one has, one will, on average, end a cruise around town feeling like ze is in the majority...or at least that there are people like hir out there, that ze is not alone.

Now, one might think that for someone with an unpopular position on a very polarized issue, this may not be the case. However, I think the positivity effect comes into play here. No doubt being exposed to an equal number of bumper stickers that are for or against one's beliefs will have an overall positive effect, as explained above. Even something like a 1::2 ratio of for::against bumper stickers will probably end up in one's favor. On top of this, though, I think that the less popular an opinion is, the greater the feelings of camaraderie when one sees one's view being expressed favorably. Conversely, the minority may end up using hir oppression as a source of power, turning the emotions invoked when seeing hir opponent's viewpoints being expressed into a validation of hir's own views. As John Stuart Mill would express as he argues for entirely unfettered freedom of expression, it is when we hear our opponents views being spoken aloud that we realize just how foolish they are, and how right are our own. 

So what does this mean, folks? If you have a passion, express it! Go buy a sticker and display it proudly! It will only make the world a happier place. Regardless of who you direct the camaraderie at, it will spray out at all who view it and give it more than a passing thought. Don't just be a boring, mindless drone. Express yourself! DO IT! Crawl out on that limb to show your fellow man what you're made of! Go out there and wear your heart on your sleeve! Just don't wear your nuts on your trailer hitch. Nobody wants to see that.

Children's show, gender blow?

That is to say, does the following example of gender being portrayed in a children's show serve as a boon or a bane (blow) to gender equality?

I can't decide if this is an example of serendipity (the "Bananas Foster Effect") or simply indicative of how pervasive expressions of gender difference are in our society, but I turned the TV on for the first time in weeks and was greeted to an episode of The Fairly Oddparents.

(For those of you who are unfamiliar with the show, it is a quite excellent cartoon on Nickelodeon starring Timmy, a boy I assume is in elementary school, who has two shape-shifting guardian angels that grant him unlimited wishes. It is through these wishes that he gets into mischief, learns life lessons, yada yada yada. Lots of the humor is very tongue-in-cheek, and it is definitely geared towards a cross-generational audience: bright colors, funny voices, and easy-to-grasp plotlines for the kids, and sarcastic humor, quick and subtle sight gags, and gratuitous use of hyperbole for their parents.)

This particular episode was heavy on the gender themes. The episode starts with Timmy trying to tie knots, ending up tying himself up (BDSM anyone?). His godparents free him, and he explains that he is practicing for the camping trip the Squirrel Scouts are about to go on, but how he hardly needs any practice, because his dad is the highest ranking in the scouts, Flying Squirrel. His dad comes in, ready and raring to go, when his pager blinks "GO TO WORK" and he drops everything to soar out the window (still in his flying squirrel uniform) to rush to his job. Jimmy is bummed, and his mom grabs the rope from the floor and ties a "triple helix double hitch knot", binding all of Dad's dropped gear into a neat package. Jimmy doesn't notice, instead thanking his mom morosely and walking out the door, wondering to his godparents where he will find a man to replace his dad on the trip.

He wishes that several of his friends' fathers would be his instead, trying each out before realizing none of them will work on the camping trip. His godparents are obviously hinting that he try his mom, who appears in cutaway scenes throughout the episode, obviously (and unintentionally) proving her worth as a camping partner by, say, tossing the gas grill over her shoulder when she couldn't light it and instead hastily erecting the perfect firepit and starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together. (Meanwhile, his father is ineptly flying in and out of the frame, behaving like a squirrel and making numerous mentions of "nuts".) Finally, the audience thinks Timmy gets the hint, saying "Maybe I don't need a DAD...", but finishes saying "...I could use a STEP-dad instead!" He tries his friend's stepdad, but to no avail. 

Timmy walks home to see his mom roasting marshmallows on her perfect fire, and she hands him one. He munches it, thanking her, and walks up to his room, forlorning that he won't be able to go on his trip. His mother calls from down in the yard, asking if he can help her hold the tent she wove out of dog hair and grass clippings while she places the hand-carved wooden tent poles. He walks outside, and his mother warns him to be careful of her enormous solar powered water purification plant (made of wood) and her gigantic display of 297 (generic) "girl scout" merit badges that she is going to spit shine later. Finally, Timmy gets it, and asks if she would accompany him. She of course agrees, suggesting they take her pre-industrial wooden catapult to the campsite. 

Cut scene to Jimmy and Mom being handed the giant golden acorn for being the best scouts. Mom makes a small speech, saying she would like to thank all the scouts and scout leaders, as well as her stern-looking, sunglasses-and-suit-clad attorney (who happens to be standing behind her and to the left) for "forcing all of you to let me attend". All of the scouts look to each other and confusedly say, "You're welcome?" 

The episode ends with a shot of the inept father soaring through the air, mouth full of acorns, being tailed by fighter jets demanding that he land. 

So, what do you think? Clueless, lollygagging father who drops an arrangement with his son to go into work (though is instead seen flying around the city the whole day)...who possesses incredible scoutly skills...as well as the super human ability to fly aided only by a scout uniform with wing flaps. Bright yet somewhat oblivious (why didn't she suggest accompanying Timmy herself?) stay-at-home mom who is clearly capable of doing all that a man does (and far more). Timmy never stopping to consider his mother as a "replacement" for his father until all other viable (and magically-induced) options are exhausted. And last, but certainly not least, the explicit mention of legal action being required to allow mom to accompany her son to a scouting event. 

Is this good or bad for a child's conception of gender? I'm going to go ahead and say it is good. While a 1:1 role reversal of parental duties is not exactly what the gender equality movement has in mind as far as achieving its goals, it's a damn good start. What's more, from a child's perspective, or even from someone not well-versed or aware of the great disparities in gender equality, the way equality is portrayed is obvious and positive; I can just picture a kid yelling at the screen, "Timmy, you fool! Can't you see your mom would be AWESOME on that camping trip? She is SO GOOD at camping! She is WAY better than all those other men you are trying out!" 

I'd love to hear your take on it, though!

Much pce, y'll.