VOGUE copyright Conde Nast
© 2022 h2omeloncholy@blogspot.com
© 2022 KM Fikes
Rooted. Another word for self-possessed. One’s self-possession advocates for child-free and single narratives that do not foster contention with our parenting and coupled counterparts. One roots for the healthiest coupling and/or child-rearing no less than one roots for our inclusion, which must equate less singles stigmatization. One hopes to simply ‘root’. Or try one’s best to do so — for all — within each of our optimal incarnations. A productive as cohesive society needs to promote supportive relating in all dynamics — be they coupled or single or something less defined. Whether we “come together” or are “all together now”, the UK’s authentically jubilant export, that of Beatles’ lyrics, are platinum advice.
In the interest of the collective, one wonders if we should consider direct contradictions in connotations of ‘selfish’ choices — as a presumed result of our singled or coupled status? One does so only with the intention of demonstrating how conventional procreating coupling makes none immune to ‘selfishness’ and may even, inadvertently, in certain instances, promote it. Again, this is by no means a charge that procreating coupling is ‘selfish’ by comparison. One definitively refutes even the notion of comparison here. Instead, one’s interest is in how attitudes - if not implied auras - around procreating coupling might unwittingly create ‘cover’ for ‘selfish’ behaviors. Meanwhile, singles or partnered child-free can remain assumed ‘selfish’, due to mainstreamed poverty of both empathy and enlightenment, for our chosen-solo life. Further, others’ ‘cover’ might be the loose, frayed threads — tangled into inextricable knots — weaving ‘isms’: racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, marriage fundamentalism, and natalism.
Speaking of ‘cover’, was one living under a rock? Rather, one should reframe one’s cluelessness, on the following matter, as contentedly living child-free to the extent of a peculiar ignorance. Upon reading of the cause of the 2020 El Dorado Fire, that burned over twenty-two thousand Californian acres from September thru November, one was slack-jawed by the cause: a ‘gender reveal’ party. Forced to type “gender reveal fireworks” into a search engine, one’s ignorance was rudely interrupted by intro to this ‘igniting’ product, sold by various outlets. Yes, it’s a thing. Are ‘gender reveal’ fireworks as commonplace at ‘gender reveal’ fêtes as pink or blue cake frost...ing? Leaves one stumped. There is now actually this adjunct soirée to baby showers of yore. One had no idea of the existence of such affairs and was immediately befuddled. Especially given our calendar year.
Has not the agency of trans, non-binary and/or gender non-confirming space-claiming led to wider awareness? Has cisgendered sensitivity not expanded, beginning to better grasp the harms in the compulsory concept, oppressive gaze, and negatively consequential policies of a gender binary? These pyrotechnic displays — billowing pink or blue smoke — to ‘announce’ gender, seem to express downright regression. This is really happening. No, seriously, it is. Accidental flames are just one way this goes awry.
If the reader needs to gather their common senses, no worries about missing the next sentence. Unlike burning brush, one can pause…
Does take a moment to process: an alleged gender — merely to be assigned at birth, that the new human, themself, has yet to affirm, deny, fuse, or refuse altogether — is actually ‘celebrated’. By way of fire hazard. Signed, sealed, and literally blown up. Should we be more stupefied or horrified at the climate-disastrous entertainment factor? Maybe ‘drought’ regions ain’t just about water. LGBTQIA+ advancement, most unfortunately, can also backfire, as witnessed by twenty states proposing their own version of a Don’t Say Gay bill. Twenty, so far, when there ain’t but fifty. How then, might these oblivious sky rockets — wicks lit upon heteronormative parental ‘anticipation’ — translate to sincere advocacy with/of queer communities?
There is an odd strain of consistency in the practice: homophobic, marriage fundamentalist, natalist. And abuse-enabling. One’s only other reference is the Vatican. They too signal their newest ‘arrival’ thru toxic smoke color. The Sistine Chapel’s chimney releases black smoke while the College of Cardinals vote. When the latest pontiff is elected, the smoke turns ethereal white. Embracing Rome, emerging upon St. Peter's balcony, the fresh Pope waves to his flock. In a frock.
Granted, the unintended El Dorado Fire is a unique example of ‘manifestly-destined’ heteronormative natalism gone every degree of wrong. Predictably as tragically, however, there have been other fires, injuries, and even the rare fatality caused by ‘gender reveal’ stunts. Nonetheless, encouraged parental elation, meeting antiquated as arguably insulting gender assumptions, continues — undeterred. It has spurred an industry that began around 2008 when the originator inspired others. Notably, with increased exposure to gender as a construct, said originator publicly regrets their contribution. Regardless, that fur-singed kitty is outta the Birkin. Presently, ‘expectant’ couples, with successful ‘gender-reveal’ choreographed dynamite, who manage to escape incident — like setting their state ablaze — avoid the ‘selfish’ label auto applied to singles and/or child-free. Contrarily, they are in hyper-procreating bliss, proudly past their senses. Traumatized Labradoodles flee from their explosives detonating as friends and family share the ‘light’ show on their social media platforms. Takes a village. All aglow.
A pyrotechnic village and a racketeering college admissions consultant.
Such was the (prosecuted) case of 2019’s Varsity Blues Scandal, wherein wealthy parents attempted to purchase their kids ‘passage’ into elite universities. The depth of ‘selfishness’ — specifically — though, was not exactly satisfactorily unpacked, for its ‘selfish’ role in rejecting inferred fairness in the college application process. Fair or not, that coveted thick ‘acceptance’ envelope, can place a clear check in the proverbial box, ‘proving’ effective parenting. For those at the edges of our social strata, the accomplishment is one suggestive of sacrifice, discipline, and above all, an ironic ‘exceptionalism’, otherwise denied as inherent to that very ‘edgy’ populous. Was this omission in zeitgeist discourse due to our ether: endemically classist and marriage fundamentalist — in conjunction with natalist? Under the auspices of couples ‘parenting well’, the ripple effects of their ‘selfishness’ can curiously demean the gains of groups on the margins, towards faint allusions to not one but two corresponding institutions: that of upper-middle-class, heteronormative familial structures and that of ivy-leagued higher education.
Trans activism and affirmative action, or some scrap of a hint towards diversity of access — respectively — are nigh dystopically dissed in the above examples of ingratiated family units caught in the act of preserving heteronorms. Both are rather extreme illustrations of the ‘traditional’ nuclear family asserting their privilege to the detriment of the whole. They do lay bare, however, certain ‘perks’ in perception from which ‘other-ed’ communities do not benefit. Heteronormative procreating couples never need consider their ‘natural’ advantage and can take the bias in their favor for granted. Should either exaggerated event— caught grossly exploiting the status quo, on which they unconsciously relied — be excused as anomalies? Or might they be cautionary tales of ‘tradition’ unchecked, hardly balanced, and daresay, lacking ‘critical theorizing’? May shades of this damage - decidedly opaque pink or blue while shading grey - be present in other aspects of heteronormative parenting?
About ‘shades’? Projections. ‘Shade’ in shadows, illusions, myths, story. Engaged as entrenched in serial media humor. How expertly a smile deemed substantive can give ‘cover’. Floating just above. At once, lighter than wafting feathers yet heavier than a sole Sisyphean boulder. We must be holistic in this analysis of the limits of domesticity-denoting-character. None can be spared who would pervert fundamental(ist) beliefs and mores. Eight televised seasons of the fictional Huxtable family (The Cosby Show, 1984–1992), where preceded by an established reputation of child-targeted programming in a popular animation series (Fat Albert, 1972- 1984). Pointedly, best-selling stand-up comedy ruminations surpassed ‘family-friendly’ for family-centered; the primary material was parental musing. Right alongside the creator’s HBCU philanthropy and ardent art patronage, a sitcom became the epitomes symbol for ‘black respectability politics’. The spokesperson for Pudding Pops was known no less than “America’s Dad”. Too preoccupied with misogynoir, the 1965 Moynihan Report, also titled, The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, failed to mention how this cushioning of corresponding institutions could became a veritable down-feathered duvet, stuffed full for a systematic predator.
‘Cover’ spreads far and wide. How many of these ‘troubled’, young mass shooters have two, yes, white parents who were warned and ignored the signs? Why were said signs discarded? Inadvertently, did they rely on their cultural or societal, racial, and economic privilege as evidence that they are not in crisis? Is that not a unique aspect of ‘selfishness’: when one cannot even recognize the state of their family — in peril — because they feel comfortably ‘sanctioned’ by society? If the coverage of ‘sanction’ might amount to some 'order' of social responsibility, how adept are families at reciprocity when these same families leave — at risk — their local elementary schools, houses of worship, movie theatres, garlic festivals, nightclubs, massage parlors, subways, medical offices, and grocery stores in food deserts?
One eschews answers. Declarative statements tend to give rise to Moynihanesque pathologies. The above flurry of queries is worthy of complex deliberation. Alas, nuanced contemplation is currently aborted for the convenience of censorship. A Greek chorus may assist here but their dramatized thought bubble popped long ago. Likely pierced by an adolescent mass shooter’s stray bullet. The kind of kid recruited on-line by white nationalists - unbeknownst to his 'ideal' household - while seated at a heteronormative dinner table, as the last progeny left to clear his parents’ plate of a second helping of once-fully-feathered…cooked goose.
At the tail end of November, 2021, just as the holiday season dawned, Oxford High School joined the scroll of mass US shootings. After a Michigan teen slaughtered four fellow students, injuring others, his parents were separately charged. Allegedly, unrestricted gun access collided with clear cries for help, demonstrative of mental distress that alarmed his teachers. Such did not seem to register with either: white wife/mother or white husband/father. Days before his rampage, his parents had ‘gifted’ their son in a scene perhaps reminiscent of that most American of holiday classics, A Christmas Story. Swap out the ‘pink’ bunny cuddling his Red Rider BB gun for a semiautomatic pistol. Prior to their unusual arrest, the married couple had to be found. Neither parent was by their detained son’s side but instead, together, the pair reportedly fled the family home, choosing a commercial building. For ‘cover’.
Lest one cherry pick from the tree which George Washington never actually chopped. Pointedly, these specific occurrences are on the farthest end of the spectrum of parental neglect. What is notable, however, is a culture creating a climate that skews recognition of various forms of neglecting collective concern — by one family unit — who is favored due to social familiarity. Somehow, neglect — or perhaps, selfishness — manages to disguise itself in the excuse of celebrating arbitrary prenatal categories, striving for scholastic attainment — at any cost, and indulgence in or indoctrination of Second Amendment absolutism as a vacuous rearing right. All mentioned maintain the illusion of not only an antiquated order, kept intact, but the necessity of domestic heteronormative compliance and complicity — in order — to do so.
ENTER: {stage left}: throngs of white, middle-class parents
SETTING: school board meetings
What line do the actors recite on cue? “We don’t want Junior to feel bad about himself”. Might they misinterpret the guise of ‘wholesome’ nuclear families as the ‘whole’ of a citizenry — with themselves as the archetype of a civilization’s nucleus or 'center’? Does this allow a self-centeredness — unable to reference the broader reality where truth of our collective history resides? Somehow, their misguided (‘selfish’, maybe) idea of what should comprise Junior’s self-esteem trumps honesty. How is that not ‘selfish’: attempting to protect him from his history — that of family legacy? How else to learn how to grapple with the fraught ambiguities of his lineage and the potential evolution in reconciliation? Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rwanda, plus every other fountain in a park in Berlin, face their difficult past. Informed, they have the option of inviting generations to be more mindful, daresay, self-possessed citizens who might co-create policy for all. Moreover, some of the books being banned in the US directly complicate heteronormativity — as standard — with welcoming narratives of queer care-giving.
When certain change can frighten dominant citizens’ ‘secure’ sense of family, is their very reaction to this ‘threat’ — to their privileged position — not also, possibly, socially immature as culturally ‘selfish’? Can their discomfort be traced to the fear of their ‘straight’ European-descended ethnicity as no longer the default authority, resulting in less inhabitance of false structural power? If so, and sharing power more democratically is somehow threatening, then are they not admitting that dominance is their preference? Were they not our cis married, parenting neighbors, colleagues, politicians, clergy, et cetera — and instead, youth on the playground, clutching marbles, not roots — how could their culturally-coddled paranoia be surmised as anything other than a form of ‘selfishness’ in need of wiser correction?
Perhaps one of the most difficult tasks, though, is accepting what happens once ‘cover’ is lifted. It reveals. Exposure to what lies beneath, inextricably tangled remnants - the ostensible ‘ish’ of an uprooted ‘self’ - prompts our offer of unsettling albeit adult correction to what others hold dire as dear: their own..all theirs…existential protection.
Til our next 'post', feast upon produce in season...
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from KM Fikes is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to KM Fikes & h2omeloncholy@blogspot.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. No excerpt or link may be used for monetary compensation.
