Original looks like it got truncated after I edited one little typo, so hope it works better now.
OK, cheap, low-rent joke section first...sort of like a pump-fake to freeze the linebackers (it's sposta be just a football reference...I'm ancient, so if it matches up in any way with woke-lingo-de-jour, get your eyes & ears over to YouTube and watch some old NFL clips...you'll get extra credit for enduring a few minutes of toxic musculinity [sic]). Oh, yeah, the joke...so after a few paragraphs, long before getting somewhere around halfway through your tour-de-farce, where you brought out the full spelling of the "M" word (speaking of "M", do any of these groomers remind you just a leetle bit of Peter Lorre?), the phrase that occurred to me was Carpet Muncherhausen by Proxy.
But seriously, per usual, you're right on el dinero. "No" should not mean, "Thanks for playing, but feel free to try again later." Is there a legal way to put someone like Avery, or a teacher, or anyone else who is on a public (or public-private, as in NGO-ish) payroll 'on notice' to the effect of "I'm not XYZ, but I've heard about it, read about it, and seen things about it on TeeVee. I'm not interested in hearing any more about it. If I change my mind, maybe I'll let you know...unless I do change my mind and until then...I'll consider you bringing it up as an assault...y'know, like how speech can be violence and all. Legally, my lawyer says you should sign this paper to acknowledge that you understand and respect my position on the matter." ?? As Stephanie Hodge useta say, "Is that too much to ask?"
Before I forget...Avery!!...nice handle for someone so heavily invested in the label game.
Lastly, since lots of kids are smart in lots of ways, some un- or semi-consciously, I wouldn't be surprised if part of Maxie's thinking wrt not being more emphatic wasn't because of our society's idea that the more strenuously someone denies something (eg, being guilty), the more likely we are to be suspicious that they're hiding something (eg, guilt). It's late, and this might not be the best analogy, but the scenes from Ken Russell's "The Devils" where the head witch theo-bureau-crat just keeps ratcheting up the intensity every time Vanessa Redgrave's character refuses to "Confess!!"
Maybe...well, no...it's late...maybe later...maybe. :-) Well, maybe Averys should have to watch at least the short clip and sign a shorter piece of paper...like an inverse of what parents have to sign if they want their youngsters to be able to opt out of material they're not comfortable with or ready for. Cheers!
ha! so Stephanie is a gen-u-ine-non-peecee HOOT! had me laffin' fer sure--never heard've her before... but back "in the day" ya COULD joke about that stuff--an' nobuddy took it the wrong way--not sure what they'd do with this kinda thing today (or Redd Foxx--whoo hoo he wuz blue--an' funny as the days were long) SO...
So... wull I didn't think the "stalkin'-like" behavior of this straight sitter but gay-adjacent-wanna-be-groomer-type wuz quite like "M" (to evoke Peter Lorre--love 'im, great character actor)--but in a sense she seemed ta wanna do an'unther kinda take out--i.e. takin' out my real daughter an' replacin' her with a gay/woke version of herself so there's that!
YUP, the dialogue ya were thinkin' of--good stuff--I'm thinkin' that moving forward I'll have my girls practice what ta say IF this happens again--an' it could! Includin' with friends, instructors... Honestly, I never thought this kinda thing, on my radar for "others' kids," would ever be on my own--kinda humbles ya.
But yes, too, there is that psychology thing--that if ya do object TOO MUCH it's also (mis-)interpreted as a "yes"--soitenly it's a movie trope--folks gotta understand no is indeed no. Didn't they used ta? I think they did... but HA, not sure the Devils is the best example of not takin' no fer an answer! I do git yer drift there (fan've Ken Russell flicks--that's a good 'un! dark tho')
Anywhoo--havin' caregivers sign something is also a good idear--THAT I hadn't thought of but I do think that once sumbuddy signs something it has more weight--I certainly will read any'buddy in this role "the riot act" so ta speak--I mean really, whod'a thunk? Find sumbuddy seems responsible, trustworthy, on-time reliable, fun + cool enuf not ta bore my daughter--an' BAM--this kinda malarkey goin' on right behind my back.
So I'll be on the ball--my girls are gonna git some practice sayin' NO loudly--they're polite but sometimes sassin' back strong is a mite better!
an' thanks fer the com-mints!--still laffin' at the Stephanie Hodge routine an' her monkey man! (long time ago I lived in an apt under such a couple--I thought my ceilin' wuz gonna come down! an' that wuz likely real plaster an' not sheetrock!)
When you wrote about your daughter's being pushed to come out as gay, when she wasn't, what came to mind was someone who was pushed into a narcotics anonymous group after smoking a couple of joints. Everyone in the group pressured her to come out as an major addict, and humiliated her for not admitting it, though she wasn't. an addict. In that case, a devastating experience.
wow, interestin'!--so there is some "pay off" in each case--status is one pay off (like usin' the gay-adjacent angle), but mebbe in the case ya mention, the idear that this one person could be either "lowered" or "made less" in the eyes of the group if they too shared the same addiction or weakness--thus the goal wuz ta take them down a notch--otherwise the group would have ta face someone who wuz not like them--who had no addition--an' tried ta do so (to achieve "equity!") by "crushing" them literally via peer pressure... That's the opposite of what a "support group" should do--dang! I'm kinda disturbed by the "idear" of forcin' a false identity on another human for the benefit of the group or of an individual whose status in their peer group would be elevated by association... a new angle that certainly wasn't on my own radar 'fore it hit home--but really interestin' how ya saw the same thing in another context too
My understanding is that the group thought she was lying because they had said those things and they were lies. EXCEPT ... in this case, she was telling the truth. And they could not see / recognize the reality of someone different from themselves.
I see--but that's them gettin' power from wearin' blinders--kinda like Avery seein' my daughter's polite objections as "the lady doth protest too much" versus "listen"--an' respect whut someone's tellin' ya. I mentioned struggle sessions at the top an' thinkin' someone's lyin'--the case with the lady ya mention an' with my daughter--is like that--in fact, assumin' there's a struggle (be it for addiction or some "gayness") that didn't even exist! (let alone needs ta be "struggled" out of them!) I hope that poor lady got away from that group an' let them "struggle" with their own power games--there is a cui bono aspect tho? "Group Think" benefits... even at the expense of a "member"... which makes it a good parallel ta the situation my girls experienced--possibly MORE harmful even... (Group Think of course kin be a daaaaangerous thing)
Oof. Reading that just boils my blood. And still. Your daughter persevered with her authentic self. Also, do you think a skit like “Pat” would ever happen on SNL again? It wasn’t insensitive, if anything, it was pro-gay, but would our culture shift consider that the opposite these days? Aren’t gay folk mad the straights are usurping their minority status for performative Olympics? Sheesh!
...jus' thinkin' they wuz also riffin' offa Charo ("Coochie Coochie!") & Carmen Miranda--both velly talented ladies who could laff 'bout themselfs no end--an' were of course amazin'ly talented too! (ya might enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToeKo0D1YvE ) Ha mebbe we'd all have work now if the biz hadn't gone so woke?
yup, yer 100% right 'bout Paaat (that wuz a fav-o-rite!) an' oh golly that one ya shared wuz a hoot! 'Tween the accent an' the malaprop-izms an' the dumb "sexy" brunette tropes I'm not sure WHICH part they'd 've canceled first--or had them all kicked off the show. that kinda unpeecee stuff wuz my bread 'n butter--likely with a good dose've improve thar! Those were the daze!
yup, "berled" my blood too--yer kiddos are young enuf ta also give 'em a heads up in general--let'em know not ta let anyone tell 'em "who they are," or lead'em to look at stuff they don't wanna see, etc. Who'd a thunk? I had no idea that straight wokesters would do gay groomin' (also didn't know what a "graysexual" wuz--had ta look it up!)...
Yup, no way Pat'd be allowed which is SAD. I too don't find it insensitive--but comedy isn't about bein' sensitive (bein' mean to an individual is another thing but hilariously mockin' like this isn't hurtful at all--'er shouldn't be in this day 'n age of "microaggressions!") If folks cain't laff at themselfs we're really in a bad place--with Pat it'd be the "dyke-y" types that kinda look like Pat included! Or men that looked kinda gender-less (Roger Ebert!) Ha ha, yup, I'd wonder if gay folks aren't mad that straights are now usurpin' their minority status, stealin' their thunder!-- I think these wokesters (gay, straight, or "whatevah") have little goin' on in their lives beyond their "status" as allies or their identities or how many "likes" an' approval ratings they have--online or in person (where they'ze all starin' at their dang phones anyway). I find it all so strange... like I wrote, in topsy turvy land the things that used ta git ya "hazed" or mocked are now revered--so they're off ta see the wizard ta give 'em all a bran' new set of gay brains--eek!
That is beyond creepy and weird, Daisy. I'm so glad your daughter handled it the way she did, and you too -- you get Mom of the Year! Thanks for sharing your experience with others, so they can spot that kind of strangeness earlier and maybe head it off...
shucks, I'm not sure 'bout "mama awards" but I had no idear of this "adjacent thing"-- my view of "groomin' " was far too limited -- thinkin' only 'bout predatory behaviors, never assumin' a "straight" person might gay-groom or set up what are literal psychological "ops" ta convince kids they're gay (etc) with THAT bein' the end-game ta amp-up the status of the groomer.
Crazy stuff an' as ya said, beyond creepy--The aspect of "tellin' folks who they are" (even if they ain't!) could affect all ages--not just kids/teens/young adults. What a way ta mess up heads! So yup, even tho' my girls are older now--the ongoin' talks are startin' right away! (Plus I'm gonna be way more proactive in new situations--who'd a thunk this would even be a thing?!)--I sure didn't see it comin' (Yowee--or Yaoi!)
Original looks like it got truncated after I edited one little typo, so hope it works better now.
OK, cheap, low-rent joke section first...sort of like a pump-fake to freeze the linebackers (it's sposta be just a football reference...I'm ancient, so if it matches up in any way with woke-lingo-de-jour, get your eyes & ears over to YouTube and watch some old NFL clips...you'll get extra credit for enduring a few minutes of toxic musculinity [sic]). Oh, yeah, the joke...so after a few paragraphs, long before getting somewhere around halfway through your tour-de-farce, where you brought out the full spelling of the "M" word (speaking of "M", do any of these groomers remind you just a leetle bit of Peter Lorre?), the phrase that occurred to me was Carpet Muncherhausen by Proxy.
But seriously, per usual, you're right on el dinero. "No" should not mean, "Thanks for playing, but feel free to try again later." Is there a legal way to put someone like Avery, or a teacher, or anyone else who is on a public (or public-private, as in NGO-ish) payroll 'on notice' to the effect of "I'm not XYZ, but I've heard about it, read about it, and seen things about it on TeeVee. I'm not interested in hearing any more about it. If I change my mind, maybe I'll let you know...unless I do change my mind and until then...I'll consider you bringing it up as an assault...y'know, like how speech can be violence and all. Legally, my lawyer says you should sign this paper to acknowledge that you understand and respect my position on the matter." ?? As Stephanie Hodge useta say, "Is that too much to ask?"
Before I forget...Avery!!...nice handle for someone so heavily invested in the label game.
Lastly, since lots of kids are smart in lots of ways, some un- or semi-consciously, I wouldn't be surprised if part of Maxie's thinking wrt not being more emphatic wasn't because of our society's idea that the more strenuously someone denies something (eg, being guilty), the more likely we are to be suspicious that they're hiding something (eg, guilt). It's late, and this might not be the best analogy, but the scenes from Ken Russell's "The Devils" where the head witch theo-bureau-crat just keeps ratcheting up the intensity every time Vanessa Redgrave's character refuses to "Confess!!"
Just in case you never caught Stephanie Hodge's standup material, here's the shortened version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogf30TPQRpk
Here's the whole she-bang, as it were... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyjefKLdhaA&t=544s
Maybe...well, no...it's late...maybe later...maybe. :-) Well, maybe Averys should have to watch at least the short clip and sign a shorter piece of paper...like an inverse of what parents have to sign if they want their youngsters to be able to opt out of material they're not comfortable with or ready for. Cheers!
That was a lot of work after getting truncated...I guess Substack & Stephanie ain't a match.
she... "blew" the stack!
ha! so Stephanie is a gen-u-ine-non-peecee HOOT! had me laffin' fer sure--never heard've her before... but back "in the day" ya COULD joke about that stuff--an' nobuddy took it the wrong way--not sure what they'd do with this kinda thing today (or Redd Foxx--whoo hoo he wuz blue--an' funny as the days were long) SO...
So... wull I didn't think the "stalkin'-like" behavior of this straight sitter but gay-adjacent-wanna-be-groomer-type wuz quite like "M" (to evoke Peter Lorre--love 'im, great character actor)--but in a sense she seemed ta wanna do an'unther kinda take out--i.e. takin' out my real daughter an' replacin' her with a gay/woke version of herself so there's that!
YUP, the dialogue ya were thinkin' of--good stuff--I'm thinkin' that moving forward I'll have my girls practice what ta say IF this happens again--an' it could! Includin' with friends, instructors... Honestly, I never thought this kinda thing, on my radar for "others' kids," would ever be on my own--kinda humbles ya.
But yes, too, there is that psychology thing--that if ya do object TOO MUCH it's also (mis-)interpreted as a "yes"--soitenly it's a movie trope--folks gotta understand no is indeed no. Didn't they used ta? I think they did... but HA, not sure the Devils is the best example of not takin' no fer an answer! I do git yer drift there (fan've Ken Russell flicks--that's a good 'un! dark tho')
Anywhoo--havin' caregivers sign something is also a good idear--THAT I hadn't thought of but I do think that once sumbuddy signs something it has more weight--I certainly will read any'buddy in this role "the riot act" so ta speak--I mean really, whod'a thunk? Find sumbuddy seems responsible, trustworthy, on-time reliable, fun + cool enuf not ta bore my daughter--an' BAM--this kinda malarkey goin' on right behind my back.
So I'll be on the ball--my girls are gonna git some practice sayin' NO loudly--they're polite but sometimes sassin' back strong is a mite better!
an' thanks fer the com-mints!--still laffin' at the Stephanie Hodge routine an' her monkey man! (long time ago I lived in an apt under such a couple--I thought my ceilin' wuz gonna come down! an' that wuz likely real plaster an' not sheetrock!)
When you wrote about your daughter's being pushed to come out as gay, when she wasn't, what came to mind was someone who was pushed into a narcotics anonymous group after smoking a couple of joints. Everyone in the group pressured her to come out as an major addict, and humiliated her for not admitting it, though she wasn't. an addict. In that case, a devastating experience.
wow, interestin'!--so there is some "pay off" in each case--status is one pay off (like usin' the gay-adjacent angle), but mebbe in the case ya mention, the idear that this one person could be either "lowered" or "made less" in the eyes of the group if they too shared the same addiction or weakness--thus the goal wuz ta take them down a notch--otherwise the group would have ta face someone who wuz not like them--who had no addition--an' tried ta do so (to achieve "equity!") by "crushing" them literally via peer pressure... That's the opposite of what a "support group" should do--dang! I'm kinda disturbed by the "idear" of forcin' a false identity on another human for the benefit of the group or of an individual whose status in their peer group would be elevated by association... a new angle that certainly wasn't on my own radar 'fore it hit home--but really interestin' how ya saw the same thing in another context too
My understanding is that the group thought she was lying because they had said those things and they were lies. EXCEPT ... in this case, she was telling the truth. And they could not see / recognize the reality of someone different from themselves.
I see--but that's them gettin' power from wearin' blinders--kinda like Avery seein' my daughter's polite objections as "the lady doth protest too much" versus "listen"--an' respect whut someone's tellin' ya. I mentioned struggle sessions at the top an' thinkin' someone's lyin'--the case with the lady ya mention an' with my daughter--is like that--in fact, assumin' there's a struggle (be it for addiction or some "gayness") that didn't even exist! (let alone needs ta be "struggled" out of them!) I hope that poor lady got away from that group an' let them "struggle" with their own power games--there is a cui bono aspect tho? "Group Think" benefits... even at the expense of a "member"... which makes it a good parallel ta the situation my girls experienced--possibly MORE harmful even... (Group Think of course kin be a daaaaangerous thing)
Oof. Reading that just boils my blood. And still. Your daughter persevered with her authentic self. Also, do you think a skit like “Pat” would ever happen on SNL again? It wasn’t insensitive, if anything, it was pro-gay, but would our culture shift consider that the opposite these days? Aren’t gay folk mad the straights are usurping their minority status for performative Olympics? Sheesh!
There's no WAY "Pat" would be allowed now. Part of the reason why SNL is so rarely funny anymore. This one slayed me, however:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJKEkZL9qrM&ab_channel=SaturdayNightLive
Hahahahaha! Yeah, that made me laugh out loud. They got me on “Refrigerator!”
Me too!! 🤣
...jus' thinkin' they wuz also riffin' offa Charo ("Coochie Coochie!") & Carmen Miranda--both velly talented ladies who could laff 'bout themselfs no end--an' were of course amazin'ly talented too! (ya might enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToeKo0D1YvE ) Ha mebbe we'd all have work now if the biz hadn't gone so woke?
That was delightful! God, I love that tune. I’ve used it in a show before. It’s really moving.
yup, yer 100% right 'bout Paaat (that wuz a fav-o-rite!) an' oh golly that one ya shared wuz a hoot! 'Tween the accent an' the malaprop-izms an' the dumb "sexy" brunette tropes I'm not sure WHICH part they'd 've canceled first--or had them all kicked off the show. that kinda unpeecee stuff wuz my bread 'n butter--likely with a good dose've improve thar! Those were the daze!
yup, "berled" my blood too--yer kiddos are young enuf ta also give 'em a heads up in general--let'em know not ta let anyone tell 'em "who they are," or lead'em to look at stuff they don't wanna see, etc. Who'd a thunk? I had no idea that straight wokesters would do gay groomin' (also didn't know what a "graysexual" wuz--had ta look it up!)...
Yup, no way Pat'd be allowed which is SAD. I too don't find it insensitive--but comedy isn't about bein' sensitive (bein' mean to an individual is another thing but hilariously mockin' like this isn't hurtful at all--'er shouldn't be in this day 'n age of "microaggressions!") If folks cain't laff at themselfs we're really in a bad place--with Pat it'd be the "dyke-y" types that kinda look like Pat included! Or men that looked kinda gender-less (Roger Ebert!) Ha ha, yup, I'd wonder if gay folks aren't mad that straights are now usurpin' their minority status, stealin' their thunder!-- I think these wokesters (gay, straight, or "whatevah") have little goin' on in their lives beyond their "status" as allies or their identities or how many "likes" an' approval ratings they have--online or in person (where they'ze all starin' at their dang phones anyway). I find it all so strange... like I wrote, in topsy turvy land the things that used ta git ya "hazed" or mocked are now revered--so they're off ta see the wizard ta give 'em all a bran' new set of gay brains--eek!
Thank you for your fortitude, bet it took me as much time to read as it took you to write.
That is beyond creepy and weird, Daisy. I'm so glad your daughter handled it the way she did, and you too -- you get Mom of the Year! Thanks for sharing your experience with others, so they can spot that kind of strangeness earlier and maybe head it off...
shucks, I'm not sure 'bout "mama awards" but I had no idear of this "adjacent thing"-- my view of "groomin' " was far too limited -- thinkin' only 'bout predatory behaviors, never assumin' a "straight" person might gay-groom or set up what are literal psychological "ops" ta convince kids they're gay (etc) with THAT bein' the end-game ta amp-up the status of the groomer.
Crazy stuff an' as ya said, beyond creepy--The aspect of "tellin' folks who they are" (even if they ain't!) could affect all ages--not just kids/teens/young adults. What a way ta mess up heads! So yup, even tho' my girls are older now--the ongoin' talks are startin' right away! (Plus I'm gonna be way more proactive in new situations--who'd a thunk this would even be a thing?!)--I sure didn't see it comin' (Yowee--or Yaoi!)