American Taboos

Saw an interesting episode of 20/20 Friday night called “Taboos: What You Can’t Do in America.” It had four main ideas it was trying to put forth as American taboos, none of which truly qualify in my mind for the definition.

WARNING: content may offend. You have been warned.

The first item is the word “nigger.” The N-Bomb. The word we’re NEVER supposed to say… if we’re white… If we’re black, it’s perfectly alright to say it… huh?!?!?!

They had D.L. Hughley on the program, discussing the usage of the word. He made some interesting and, to my way of thinking, valid points in its regard.

One, anyone should be able to say it. IT IS A WORD… six letters strung together that, because of historical reference and implication, connotes racism and hatred. The word was created by white people, and then shanghaied by black people, turned from a negative connotation to a more positive connotation… depending upon whom you talk to. Rap guys want it to have positive spin: “What up, my nigga!” Chris Rock and Whoopie Goldberg don’t put a positive spin on it, because to their way of thinking, those who fit that particular moniker have devalued themselves as human beings, living down to a standard that no individual should STRIVE to attain.

Second, it is JUST a word… Hughley made the point that so much time and energy is spent on keeping the word “nigger” from being spoken in public, but that there are so many more concerns that should be addressed. Like education. Like poverty. If we spent as much time addressing those REAL issues that is spent on the fake issue of the word “nigger,” the word’s usage would greatly diminish. And through that diminishment, it would lose its power. It ONLY has power because people give it power. People CHOOSE to allow that word to incite and offend. If we quit giving it power, it will stop being “taboo.”

Second item was the concept of gays in Hollywood. Now, nobody is being stupid and saying there are no gays in Hollywood. What “they” are saying (they being the producers and/or studio owners) is that a gay man cannot (and will not) be a lead in a romantic comedy. The reason being goes to an old Hollywood adage regarding leading men: “All the men want to be you, all the women want to be with you.” So the reasoning goes: if you put a known homosexual male in a lead heterosexual romantic role, the ability for the audience to suspend disbelief of reality fails. Thus the movie loses money, because the woman can’t fantasize about the male lead.

We can believe that Bruce Willis drives a cop car up a tollbooth and into a flying helicopter and survives the explosion, but we can’t believe that Rupert Everett can be sexy with, say, Julia Roberts, in a romantic comedy? Somebody on the show made the point that it would take something like Brad Pitt to announce he was gay for this particular “taboo” to end. Because I don’t tend to think in those terms, I’m not sure if there’s any validity to any of it. It makes sense from a psychological viewpoint. But I think if Hugh Jackman came out of the closet (not that I think he’s gay, but what if…), woman would STILL go to a romantic film with him as the lead, if only with the mentality of “Can’t we turn him straight?”

Enough of that…
Third concept: mixed marriage and gender role reversal. By mixed marriage, they touched on, but did not go deeply into, racial difference. It apparently is ok for a black man to date / marry a white woman, but not the other way around (at least in Hollywood). Makes no sense to me, but whatever…

Mostly what they dealt with was a couple where the woman was overweight but her husband was average weight (what I call Jack Sprat Syndrome). This is taboo? Nobody told me this, nobody sent me the memo. And WHY is this taboo? I married Steph, not because of her weight, but because of WHO she is: a smart, fascinating, engaging woman. So she’s overweight. SO WHAT? But, as Steph has pointed out, we don’t get the derogatory looks since I put on some weight of my own. When I was toothpick-like, she says we would get odd looks when we would go out in public. I never noticed. I was oblivious.

The other example that had was a couple in Utah (of all places) where the mom is the major breadwinner, and the dad is stay-at-home. Not because he’s incapable of earning income. He founded some Internet company, then retired to stay home and take care of the kids. This was by choice. His wife had a better income (she’s president of a scrap booking company) and they decided AS A COUPLE that she would continue working and that he would take on the house duties. Their family and neighbors can’t understand it. “What’s wrong with him? Can’t he get a job?”

This “taboo” comes from perspective and cultural influence. American males, by and large, grow up with the idea that, in order to be successful as a MAN, you have to go out and earn a living, and get a wife to stay home, take care of the house, and raise the kids. But, economics being what they are, and the women’s liberation movement being what it is, more and more couples are doing the double income thing. It’s rare when a couple come to the decision of the woman working and the man staying at home. “It’s just downright un-American!” Hey, if Steph had the better income job, we might consider the role reversal…

Fourth item struck me as a “reaching” piece. It concerned a mom who had the “audacity” to say her children bored her. She had been a working woman, but had a couple of kids and was doing the mommy thing. She had gone to mommy / baby “play dates” where all the moms and kids sat around doing repetitive kid education type games. Then she printed an article in the London Times saying she was bored to death.

Ladies… mommies… I hate to break it to you, but raising kids is challenging, it’s rewarding, but it is NOT exciting. Yes, there are times when your adrenaline gets kicked up, because your kid is in a situation where danger MIGHT rear its ugly head. But ONLY because good parents are paranoid. By and large, kids are boring. Don’t you remember? Life was pretty humdrum. The excitement you felt was what you created, by and large. And what excites a kid does not necessarily excite an adult.

Now, to be honest, I thought the mom in question was rather selfish; thinking only of her own interests and desires. Hate to break it to you, ma’am, but you made a choice to have kids. That choice means you have to put your kids FIRST. YOUR desires are now secondary, in favor of betterment of your children. Yes, raising kids is boring and monotonous, but it is not forever. Be thankful that you have NORMAL children, that your life IS boring. Be thankful you don’t have a special needs child to complicate you life. THAT is not boring. It’s not the kind of excitement you want, but it’s NOT boring.

So that’s what 20/20 is calling taboos. Funny… I’ve thought that cannibalism, child rape, and incest were taboos… Have those reached a point of acceptance in this country? So much so that a word, an idea, a lifestyle… these are NOW our taboos? If this is the case, we deserve something of biblical proportions to smite us. Rain of fire, world flood, locusts… global warming… hmmm….