The Crowhill Journal

The alleged political wisdom is that there are people who will always vote Republican, people who will always vote Democratic, and a small number of swing voters. Candidates have to appeal to the swing voters to win.

Among those swing voters there are the people who are undecided. This has always been a mystery to me. The parties are so far apart on so many things, it seems hard to imagine not being able to choose between them.

Frank Luntz, who does focus groups for Fox News, cleared that up for me last night.

When I consider a candidate or a party, I look at their policies. I don’t care that much about their style or personality.

These undecideds are the opposite. They don’t care too much about policies. They want to know who they like, and who they can trust.

It reminds me a little of the debates I used to have about various Christian denominations. I always focused on the doctrines of the church, but many people are more concerned about the quality of the child care during Sunday School, the friendliness of the people, the type of music they have in worship, and things like that.

These undecideds want to know who they like and trust — Trump or Biden. And I can certainly understand how they would be undecided about that!

I went in to get my teeth cleaned this morning, and my hygienist told me a story.

She was cleaning some lawyer’s teeth, and one of the dentists was in the next booth over, talking about politics from a conservative point of view. The lawyer was incensed. He asked, “Who is that? I don’t ever want him working on me.”

A few things come to mind here.

First, how would the lawyer feel if people declined his legal services because they didn’t agree with his politics? Wouldn’t the lawyer insist that he was able to represent his clients — guilty or innocent, conservative or liberal, young or old, etc. — irrespective of his political beliefs? And if a lawyer can claim such a thing, can’t a dentist claim it with even greater justice? After all, the law is political. Teeth are not.

Second, how did we get to such a place? How did so many people become so intolerant?

Generally speaking, when I go to someone to get a service, my concern is that they’re good at what they do — that the mechanic is a good mechanic, the dentist is a good dentist, and the tailor is a good tailor. I don’t care what they believe about the Green New Deal.

I don’t know the political views of my dermatologist, and I don’t care. I suppose there are limits to that. If I knew he was a Nazi, I might decline to give him my business.

Is that why we’re in this crazy place? People have been hurling around wild accusations based on the slightest departure from orthodoxy. (“You’re literally Hitler!”)

Do people actually believe that nonsense?

It was more civil, but less interesting.

Why does the moderator get to set the agenda and ask the questions? Why not let the candidates ask each other what they want to talk about?

The Motor Vehicles Administration is a relatively constant source of jokes about grouchy, inefficient, unhelpful, mopey people. For most of my life, that’s been born out by experience. Going to the MVA was like getting a tooth pulled.

Today I had to make a quick trip to renew my registration, and I was shocked at how cheerful, helpful and professional everyone was.

Somebody clearly took those jokes / jabs to heart and made an effort to reform the culture at the MVA.

In this episode of Newz and Booze, P&C review the controversial Netflix film “Cuties.”

The movie itself

It starts with a cute little girl cutting out pictures for her mother, which is a nice touch to calibrate the audience to the age of the main character, Amy.

She is in a very strict Muslim culture. In one scene, where a bunch of women are gathered to talk about their faith, we hear, “The devil dwells in the bodies of uncovered women,” and “therefore we must strive to protect our decency.”

Amy is told to study hard and do well in school, so this is not crazy “don’t educate girls” Islam.

She’s exposed to sexy music and dancing when a girl in her apartment building does a sexy dance in tight leather-like pants. Honestly, that was disturbing. Your brain is torn between “she’s hot” and “gross, she’s 11.” I think that sort of thing is one of the main problems with this movie. We don’t need movies that make 11 year olds look sexy.

Amy is living in and torn between two worlds: the conservative world of her family and culture, and the crazy world of contemporary France.

We learn that Amy’s father is taking a second wife, and the mother is pressured to be okay with that. She’s not, but she puts on a show because that’s what her culture expects.

At this point you have to wonder, “What the Heck, France?” On the one hand, the over-sexualization of children is okay, but on the other hand, bring your second wife.

The “cuties” are a wannabe dance team. They’re a collection of rotten, catty girls being raised by the internet. They’re foul-mouthed bullies with no manners. They know nothing about sex, but what they see online is that hyper-sexualized behavior makes women popular, so they want to get in on it.

Amy steals a phone from her uncle. She starts looking at pictures of young tarts on the phone and tries to imitate them. She watches videos of girls twerking and learns to do it herself.

She gets in with the cuties and ends up dancing with them. Some of the dance moves are very inappropriate and simulate sex.

All the cuties have daddy issues.

Amy gets in a fight with a rival dance group. During the fight her pants are pulled down, exposing little girl panties, which brands them all as little girls. Which they are, of course, but they want to be seen as older. Amy wants to prove she’s a woman so she posts a picture of her crotch.

Cue the economics of sex: the other girls say, “now that you’ve done it, we’re expected to do the same.”

The final dance is way too sexual. Parents in the audience are shaking their heads and covering the eyes of their children.

During the last dance, Amy cries and can’t finish. She runs home, changes into modest clothes, doesn’t go to her father’s wedding, but does jump rope outside. She has rejected the culture of her father and the over-sexualization of the culture.

Commentary

Several things can be true at once.

• The message is good: the over-sexualization of children is bad.
• The story is good: it’s well told. It’s the story of little girls trying to grow up in an over-sexualized culture. Also, there’s the clash of cultures in modern-day France.
• Did it go too far: Yes. It didn’t need to go that far to make the point. E.g., the camera should not have been focusing on crotches and butts, and the dance moves didn’t have to be that sexual to make the point.
• Does it exploit children? Absolutely. Think how many girls had to audition for this, and what those auditions were probably like.
• Does it encourage pedophilia? Maybe. It will certainly be a favorite of pedophiles.
• Is the movie as bad as some people say? No.

We need to distinguish the intent of the director from the intent of Netflix in promoting the film. Look up the difference between the poster in France and the poster on Netflix. People are right to criticize Netflix for that.

The movie raises a common question. When you have a movie about some difficult subject, like rape or violence, does the movie expose how awful rape or violence is, or does it promote and normalize it? There’s the same issue here with the sexualization of children. Are they exposing the problem, or are they normalizing it?

We live in a culture where WAP by Cardi B is acceptable. And have you been to a dance recital recently? It’s very common to sexualize little girls.

The movie highlights two things our society hasn’t come to terms with. First, what level of sexuality is appropriate in society generally, and second, when should girls get involved in that?