Is it just me, or is the term lady of the house now somewhat patronizing and dated if not just plain sexist? The fact that she asked for the lady of the house is presumptuous for a couple of reasons. 1) She doesn't really know whether or not there is a female living in my home, and 2) Even if she did know I was married, how does she know my wife is a lady?
I still use the word "lady" in a limited number of circumstances. Colloquially I'll use the term with people I know to point out a woman who I find disagreeable for one reason or another. I might say the lady with the bad attitude or that blue-haired lady. In addition I might use the term where I deem it appropriate in a job title like lunchroom lady or spritzer lady. A girl can act like a little lady, and as far as more regal titles go, I won't begrudge you yours if you fancy yourself Lady Chatterly or Lady Godiva or even Lady Elaine Fairchild. Was she a lesbian puppet by the way? I'm just asking.Aside from those examples however, lady is a term best left said in 1950s gangster movies. But this isn't a rant on proper use of the term lady, so I'm just going to move on. Move with me, won't you?
Back to my phone call . . .
When I told the woman from the Dove Foundation that the lady of the house was not available (a small lie) she quickly said that there was no message and that they'd try and call back later. This too is rude in my opinion because it presumes that I would have no interest in the same matters my wife would regarding whatever these people want to discuss. If it's feminine hygiene products I can understand that, but when I then told the woman there was no lady of the house, she proceeded with her spiel and it had nothing to do with feeling more confident.
She wasn't selling anything. Her call would take less than 45 seconds, and oh by the way a recent survey had shown that many Americans feel movie and television ratings have become more lenient while television programming has begun to include more and more gratuitous sex, violence and foul language; and barring closer monitoring of children's tv viewing would I agree that the solution was to tighten restrictions on tv and movie rating systems.
What a loaded and yet evasive question!
It's loaded because the actual wording and tone used by the caller suggested that the underlying question was Don't you love your children enough to want what's best for them? The evasiveness comes because the true and simplest answer to the question is embedded in the question itself with the directive to disregard that as a potential solution.
MONITORING WHAT YOUR CHILDREN WATCH ON TV IS THE SIMPLEST AND BEST SOLUTION FOR KEEPING YOUR CHILDREN FROM WHAT YOU REGARD TO BE TELE-FILTH.
Furthermore, complaining about the quality of tv programming is like complaining about the flavor of garbage. If you don't like it, why would you consume it? I'm not big on television myself, not because I find it overly raunchy or risque (I'm all for gratuitous sex) but because I find most of the programming out there to be simplistic and contrived. Cooking shows are bland. Sitcoms aren't funny and serial type shows just look like the same story rehashed over and over week after week. I mean really folks, how many sexual fetishist undergrounds can Grisham and Sara stumble into before audiences realize these are the same hackneyed stories they've seen before? Drugstore paperbacks are less formulaic.
So anyway, this volunteer from the Dove Foundation -- I think from now on I'll call her the Dove lady -- barely let me get the word no out of my mouth before she abruptly spoke over me saying at lightning speed, "Okay, thank you. Goodbye." How rude! I was going to tell her why I felt the way I did. You'd think if she were truly interested in my opinion she would have heard me out.
Oh no.
I was nothing more than a check mark on her tally sheet, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if she only tallies the answers she likes anyway.
I looked up the Dove Foundation on the innerweb to find out what exactly they're all about. You probably guessed already that they're a right-wing fundamentalist group that spends its time finding what they don't like about what's on tv and then trying to reach into your living room and decide what you should and shouldn't watch. If it were up to them television programming would consist of nothing more than animated vegetables telling us we need to accept Pat Robertson as our Lord and Savior.
Ditto for movies. While a blurb on their About Us page mentions they strive not to condemn filmmakers whose movies don't meet their standards but rather promote those who do, there is a section of their site dedicated strictly to reviews of movies currently running. They weren't great fans of Talladega Nights and you can just imagine what they said about Clerks 2. The reviewer even noted that in the newest Kevin Smith flick the f-word was used 116 times. Why do I think she somehow got off on counting these vulgarities? Dove-savvy movie goers will be glad to know however that there are no occult themes in the film.
I won't bombard you with a lecture on freedom of expression and how freedoms come with responsibilties of the self and not finger pointing at others. You probably already have your own views on censorship and hopefully you're secure enough in your beliefs that your opinion can't be swayed by some faceless yahoo and his blog. Just do me this one favor:
If someone from the Dove Foundation calls you up and speaks with you because you're the lady of the house, don't be a lady. Give her the what-for.
0 comments:
Post a Comment