Nice, white, colourblind people

Yesterday in written expression we had to describe a photo.
As detailled as possible. Including the colour of the windowframe the woman was standing in front of.
Something nobody* thought worth mentioning: a white woman.
Because duh, if I** say "woman", of course that means "white woman", right?
If she'd had the audacity to be black I'd surely have mentioned, right?
Because I'm colourblind. I don't see white....

*well, except me.
**Not actually me

No, the important things about women ain't their looks....

Don't know how informed you are about German news, but you might have heard that we had a trio of murdering fascists roaming the country for more than 10 years who killed people of Turkish and Greek origin.
The trail against the one surviving member, Beate Zschäpe and some of their accomplices started last week after it had been postponed. Postponing was necessary because there is, of course, a big interest in the media about the trial and not enough space for all the journalists to sit. After all, this is said to be the most important trial in Germany in recent history.
So, what did the media tell us about that first day of trial?

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:

Beate Zschäpe, die mit dem Rücken zu den Fotografen steht, ihren Kopf in den Nacken wirft und ihre langen rot-schwarzen Haare schüttelt und schüttelt, als wäre sie auf einer Strandpromenade und nicht in einem Gerichtssaal.

Beate Zschäpe, who has her back turned towards the fotographers, who throws her head back and who shakes and shakes her red-black hair as if she were o a beach promenande and not in a courtroom.

Süddeutsche Zeitung:

  Sie trägt einen schwarzen Hosenanzug und eine helle Bluse. Ihr Aussehen sorgt für Aufsehen. "Mit Ohrringen und Stöckelschuhen ist sie gekommen", schreibt die türkische Zeitung Hürriyet.

She's wearing a black suit and a light blouse. Her look draws attention: "She came with earrings and in high heels" writes the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet

And so on, and so on.
Rejoice ladies. Even when you're a murderous fascist terrorist still nothing will be as important as your looks...

Oh the sweet victim blaming

Trigger warning, obviously
So, the local radio station pointed me towards Kate Miller-Heidke and her song Sarah. A beautiful, talented voice, a song that chills the bones, well-sung, expressive and oh, so wrong.

The song tells the story of a friend of hers who is the first person narrator of the song. It is the story of two young girls who went to a music festival, deemed to be "safe as safe can be". The age of the girls is not given exactly, but they have to sneak in gin, and they are supposed to be picked up by midnight, so we're dealing with teenagers and I don't think on the upper end of "teen".
While dancing, the friend of the narrator, Sarah, suddenly disappears. The only thing found of her is her dress the next day. She returns two weeks later, not knowing what happened or where she had been.
So we're talking about a horrible crime commited against a child, obviously.
Yet the criminal in this story is invisible. He doesn't get mentioned, it is as if he doesn't exist, as if this whole tragic event isn't solely the fault of one person who decided to abduct and probably rape a child.
Instead, the blame gets put on the girls. The narrator is blamed by the parents, apparently she didn't take enough care of her friend. And she blames herself. "I didn't mean to let you down...I hated when I let you down". How exactly? How was she supposed to know that something horrible would happen the moment she turned around? Weren't they supposed to be "safe as safe can be"? And she blames her friend "but you left me on my own...why didn't you scream, why didn't you shout?"
The idea is clear: There are things the two girls could have done to prevent this from happening. The criminal is like a force of nature whose path you can't change. You can only get out of the way.
I admit that there is the possibility that Kate Miller-Heidke actually tries to show how ridiculous, cruel and stupid it is to put the blame on the victim, to put the onus on girls and women not to get raped. I just don't think that it is coming across like that and not like a "tragic story of two girls where one didn't pay attention and the other didn't scream loud enough.

Who moved the zebra, eh cheese?

You know that idea of "who moved the cheese"? The idea that, if we suddenly find that the provisions we carefully made are gone we're supposed to work harder and find new resources instead of asking who fucking moved the cheese.
Today I noticed that concept in a children's book. Yes, teach 'em young.
The story is about a zebra in the Zoo who wakes one morning to find her stripes gone. She's black all over and sad and scared. Together with her friend she sets out to find new stripes. When she's finally made it she meets the zoo director who tells her that he borrowed her stripes while she slept because he needed a zebra crossing, but wasn't she a good zebra to find new ones for herself so her old stripes could now serve as a zebra crossing forever?
The moral of the story: If you're brave you'll find new cheese, eh stripes.
My daughter didn't buy it. Hearing it again and again (isn't it incredible how often they'll make you read the very same story) and knowing in the beginning that the solution to the vanished stripes is the director, she said "he just shouldn't have taken her stripes without asking. He mad her sad."
Good girl, bad authors.

On the non-existence of parental rights and why mum still knows best

If you're confused by the title, don't worry, it's intentional. I'm trying to explain.
First of all, there's this parental rights thing. We all know it. I'm a passionate mum. Mess with my kids and you find out why the most dangerous animal is a mother with young indeed. And don't start telling me why I absolutely must do X, thank you very much.
Sounds like I really like my parental rights, really?
Only that I don't think that such a thing exists. There are no imanent rights to anything that has to do with a child just because you ejaculated inside a fertile woman or poped a baby out of your vagina.
Because children are people, too.
Shocking idea, isn't it?
But I challenge you to cite a modern democratic constitution that starts with somewhat like "people have the right to life, liberty and free speech provided they're of age". Nope, those rights are granted to everybody, plus a bunch of other rights, like the right to vote and so on.
But rights come with responsiblities and consequences. And let's face it, if you have no clue what "100$" means, you shouldn't be allowed to spend them on sweets. If you can't understand what a pneumonia is, you don't get to make the choice to run around in your swimming trunks in a January snowstorm. And if you think "they promised me a lollipop" is a really good argument to vote for somebody, you shouldn't be allowed to vote*.
So, if you can't understand the consequences, you don't get the right.
Yet some of those rights are necessary for daily life. Unlike voting, which is something a lot of adults don't do, the decissions about food and clothing need to be made constantly. Others, like taking the kid to the doctor, are crucial and can't be left unadressed. So they're given to a responsible adult who's usually also the parent.
So, even though I get to make all those choices, I don't have the right to make them. I'm the stewardess of my child's rights.
I hand them back, little by little, until one day I'm not needed to make them anymore. There's a fully grown human person who can weigh the advantages and consequences of pancakes for breakfast herself.  And if I've done my job well, could make me some, too, please.
Now that I've established that I have no real right on that child, I still know best, well, most of the time. Not because of some magical mummy instincts. Not because I'm infallible. Simply because I know that kid best. I know their habits and characters. My experience tells me pretty well whether it's time for them to see the doctor or whether they just need a day on the couch with choclate cake, hot tea and lots of love.
That's why I generally don't care much if little Johnny is running around on the playground at 9 pm. Unless I've got reason to think that he's there because there's nodody at home or something like that, of course. But maybe little Johnny takes a long nap in the afternoon. Or he needs little sleep in general. Or a bazillion other sound reasons why Johnny's primary caretaker lets him run around that late.
So, don't look away when harm is done, because they have no right to do it.
But also don't judge people because they're making a different decision than you would make.

*I do notice that this is a problem with adult voters, too ;)