Shelter Show

[chuckro]

So, the Attic Ensemble theater company, which Jethrien and I did the murder mystery with and who we've done a bunch of tech work for, has an annual tradition of doing a short children's show and Christmas caroling for several homeless shelters in the Jersey City area. I performed in the show this year ("Christmas Magic", about a wizard who learns about a magic far more powerful than his, centering entirely on holiday cheer and making no religious references), and Jethrien managed to escape work early enough to join us for caroling one of the nights.

An odd disconnect occurs as an actor in a "charity" show like this. On one hand, as a person, you want to feel incredible empathy and sorrow for the kids and the mothers who are in a homeless shelter less than half a mile from my home, where I have comfort and security. (And, for that matter, from a row of i-banks and luxury housing, where overindulgence and opulence are king.) On the other, as an actor and an entertainer, you cannot, for even a moment, have these feelings. If you feel pity for your audience, that comes through your performance, and either you simply fail to make them happy, or they outright start to resent you. So you spend the performance in a weird disconnect where you must convince yourself that this is just another audience of parents and kids, but must shut out the part of you that knows why you're there.

That said, coming out of that, I have no idea how I feel following the show. One of the other actors commented as we were leaving that this was a mitzvah; and I suppose that's true, in that we brought some bright spirits and an evening of entertainment to people who are experiencing hard times. But on the other hand, I feel like I've put a band-aid on a festering wound. It feels like, "Look at me, I've done my part for these poor people, now I can go home and sleep well and celebrate what I have."

It makes me wish I could give some kind of job-skills course, or knew someone at a temp agency. Do something that would really help the problem, you know?

It also humbles you a bit. Being insulated among the well-off fiscal-conservative types can make you forget that the poor are people; that the poor are often children whose mothers are children themselves. As Dickens put it, "Oh, God, to hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his brothers in the dust."

The other train of thought, that I commented to Jethrien about, is that being an adult male interacting with other people's children in our society makes me, at best, ill-at-ease. Even the appearance of impropriety can ruin your life forever, and I'm in the number-one most "suspicious" demographic when it comes to child abuse: young-to-middle-aged adult men. Presumably it'll be different with my own kids; perhaps also with the kids of my friends or of people who I trust and who I know trust me.

Perhaps part of my obviously-ticking biological clock is the desire for a child I can hug without constant fear of overblown, unwarrented reprisal.

Comments

[nanonicole.livejournal.com]

Wow, Chuck, you've hit on a lot of points that I'd love to elaborate on. (In all of which I agree with you. And your last point about hugging a child without fear of reprisal is a really good one.)

I totally feel the "Look at me, I've done my part for these poor people, now I can go home and sleep well and celebrate what I have" is sometimes overwhelming for me. It's almost like I don't know how to serve/volunteer/whatever without having that vibe come off even if it's the last thing on my mind. But then it gets to the point where it seems that the only way to help the poor is to give up everything you have until you're poor also (a la Mother Teresa). And if we all did that... well... I don't even know what would happen. (Mass poverty? No consumerism? Communal living groups?)

I think there's a difference between celebrating all that we have and being grateful for it. Leaning towards the latter can put your mind at ease, but it doesn't change a whole lot in the end.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

And if we all did that... well... I don't even know what would happen. (Mass poverty? No consumerism? Communal living groups?)

If everyone (especially the super-rich) was involved, then it wouldn't be mass poverty; as a society, we do have enough to meet everyone's basic needs if we try. We'd have to give up at least some level of consumerism, because otherwise people would dig themselves right back into poverty be spending more than they made. Communal living groups? Well, only if they were far more efficient than what we have. In the case of McMasions, maybe.

In any case, everyone giving up all of their excess and giving it to the poor would be...perfect [on paper] communism. From each according to ability, to each according to need. And utopian, if not for the fact that people are involved and people need incentives to work and grow.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Even the smallest bit to help is worth it, so while you can't pat yourself on the back and declare you've solved poverty, you're at least not wearing blinders to it 100% of the time. Better than some, not better than all. Really, when there are people who do nothing, care nothing for those less fortunate than themselves out there, I don't think you need to reproach yourself for being glad of what you've earned for yourself.

As regards kids, I understand that awkwardness after a fashion. We live in increasingly distrustful times that have also gotten fanatical about early starts/effects experienced by children. There's some possessed notion that anything that happens to you early on is irrevocable. So, even a nice strange man is potentially some screwed up psyche issue waiting to happen. All of this you're aware of through exposure, which can't make it easier to indulge your genuine, paternal fondness for kids.

The fact that our society doesn't understand that side of fathers openly is another complication. Even your language seems strange--biological clock? Why, only women have those! Fathers are supposed to live out their dreams of immortality through their progeny, not love them! And, okay, that's an extremist sort of view, but it's not so far off the norm when we have an overwhelming prejudice that leads us to still raise eyebrows over stay-at-home dads versus stay-at-home moms.

Not that any of that helps alleviate the feeling, only that I do understand why you experience it so much greater than I or any female your age would.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

leads us to still raise eyebrows over stay-at-home dads versus stay-at-home moms.

Years ago, I worked for a women whose husband was a stay-at-home dad. She was a higher-up at a financial firm, lived in a giant house in a ritzy neighborhood, and probably made as much as most CEOs. She obviously loved her job and was very good at it. This still led my mother to comment that something was odd about her husband or their relationship that he didn't work.

Contrast against my uncle, who has the exact same situation, but with the genders reversed. No one ever thinks that's the slightest bit odd.

Fathers are supposed to live out their dreams of immortality through their progeny, not love them!

One of my biggest annoyances about "feminists" who one meets online is that many of them seem to see no connection between changing society to allow men to take traditional female roles (or even to just show emotion), and allowing women to move out of those roles. Even though the two are obviously, inextricably linked. Nope, the very mention of that lumps you in with the idiot "Men's Rights Activists".

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

One of my biggest annoyances about "feminists" who one meets online is that many of them seem to see no connection between changing society to allow men to take traditional female roles (or even to just show emotion), and allowing women to move out of those roles. Even though the two are obviously, inextricably linked. Nope, the very mention of that lumps you in with the idiot "Men's Rights Activists".


Ugh, I should hope no one stupid enough to think that is going around calling themselves a feminist. We've enough trouble with people spreading lies about what it means to be a feminist as is.

What feminism should mean is that the "traditional feminine roles" should be gender neutral. Exactly that, in fact. The elimination of such ideas of what woman's versus man's work is what is at the core of feminism. Anti-feminists hate men much more than feminists do because anti-feminists are the ones who lead the charge to make men feel ashamed of or less than manly for having natural inclinations like you've given voice to--loving, nurturing, and generally being taking care of children they've helped bring to life. You shouldn't have to shock anyone by stepping into that role or voicing those "feminine" interests. You don't shock me, certainly.

Likewise, you should be free to reject those "masculine" ideals of burping, being a sex-fiend, or liking football if they don't suit you (and cheering on your mother, sister, wife, or female friend if she does like them). You're 100% right--neutralizing the gendered aspect of jobs and character traits is a two-way street, and no one who has an interest in gender equity would say otherwise. So feel free to co-opt those "womanly" traits of liking kids and stuff. I'm not doing anything with mine, so that balances out, right?

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

What feminism should mean is that the "traditional feminine roles" should be gender neutral.

I agree wholeheartedly. But should you ever decide you hate yourself, read any extended thread on Slacktivist where feminism is being discussed (or abortion, or torture, or pretty much anything that isn't group-hate against Left Behind). There are several posters who claim to be [female] feminists and are often quite sane, but become Limbaughian Strawfeminists if the discussion gets heated enough.

Likewise, you should be free to reject those "masculine" ideals of burping, being a sex-fiend, or liking football if they don't suit you

Can I still be a sex-fiend? I do my best to hide it well.

I'm not doing anything with mine, so that balances out, right?

That's fair, then. I can cede to you my interest in sports in exchange, if you'd like. I'm not using that.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Can I still be a sex-fiend? I do my best to hide it well.

On the day that sex-related shame dies its long overdue death, you can be a sex fiend in the open. Until then, continue on as you were.

That's fair, then. I can cede to you my interest in sports in exchange, if you'd like. I'm not using that.

I'd sooner take the automatic assumption of your ability to work and not let "family" get in the way of career, plz? K thnx bye.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I'd sooner take the automatic assumption of your ability to work and not let "family" get in the way of career, plz?

I wish I could give it to you. That would give more realistic impressions of both of us, I think.

[lithoglyphic.livejournal.com]

What gets me is the feeling that I'm letting down my gender if I assign any value whatsoever to relationships, children, cooking, teaching, etc. Sometimes I think that society didn't so much let women out of traditional roles as devalue them. These days women have the same trouble "tak[ing] traditional female roles (or even... just show[ing] emotion)" as men do.

And this has been true for a while. I remember how my (awesome, yay) stay-at-home mom received a whopping dose of condescension from certain of my classmates' careerist parents when I was a kid. "Hey, can you pick up my daughter from dance class when you pick up Ashley? I mean, you're not busy doing anything else..."

Real progress is when we can't remember what the traditional roles even were, but that's a level of cultural-memory erasure that takes not just time but generations.

Have any of you seen Mona Lisa Smile? I'm thinking of Julia Stiles's character. And if you haven't seen Mona Lisa Smile, you should.

(Julia Roberts's character is my high school in a nutshell, by the way.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

In fact the devaluation of "women's" work has been shown to occur specifically when women are the ones doing said work. In a study of perception alone, stay-at-home dads were perceived as doing more work, more "worthy" work than stay-at-home moms. There's also the very real discrimination there that's entirely sexism, and that is, no matter what work they are doing, men are always perceived as doing more and better and more efficiently than women, regardless.