Dear Bandwagon Hippies

I think it’s time we had this talk. There’s a fine line between funny and embarrassing yourself, and I’m worried you’re in great danger of crossing that line, if you haven’t done so already. So please, put the hackey sack down and let’s talk.

 

I don’t think any of you have any idea what the hell you’re talking about. You walk around in your peace sign t-shirts listening to the Greatful Dead and add fifty Facebook applications about what “causes” you support. You paint yourself as a modern activist, and why shouldn’t you be? You obviously have interest and “support for that cause”. But you see, here’s the thing. Saying that you like a cause for what it stands for is one thing, but how many of you actually put the bong (Oh! Because that’s a perk of being a hippie too!) down long enough to actually do something about it? Donate a dollar. Give canned food to a food drive. Use less water. Don’t buy from stores you know have shady practices, either in where their products come from or how corporate treats their employees. Bone up on your rights, and do a little research other than picking out what headlines sound outrageous and automatically thinking that you can have a well-informed opinion based on one article. That’s not how it works. Don’t start up with this “activism!” stuff unless you actually know what you’re talking about.

 

Do any of you even know what the sexual revolution of the sixties was like? Probably not. You go and see Across the Universe and you were automatically there  because that movie is a brilliant time capsule of “how it was back in the day”. It was a good movie, but accuracy? Why not watch a documentary, or hell, a movie from that era? A few entries ago, I complained about VH1’s lack of good programming, but I thought Sex: The Revolution was actually quite informative. And this whole weed thing? You’re not the only one that smokes it, and don’t get mad when people out of your little clique do it too. That seems pretty anti-hippie to me.

 

So please realize no matter how many times you listen to the Greatful Dead or the Beatles, no matter how much tie-dye you wear, no matter how many peace signs you get tattooed to your body or how many PETA rallies you go to (driven to in a car with leather seats, probably!) you AREN’T CAPTURING THE ESSENCE OF WHAT FREE-LOVE WAS ABOUT. YOU’RE USING IT AS A FASION STATEMENT.

 

Go look up counter culture! I think most of you will find that’s not really what you’re doing.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Kat

Then again, maybe I’m the ignorant one

“Sanctity of marriage” is another one of those phrases I hate. I hate it mostly becase “sanctity” implies “holiness”. In theory, marriage is a bond between two people that should be valued and respected in society, what some people may regard as a “holy bond”. That’s just the problem with that argument– it’s in theory. The state is the one that authorizes marriage, and according to the good ol’ Constitution, there is a distinct separation between church and state. So yes, in theory, marriage is a holy, sacred bond. In practice? It’s a joining of two people by law.

 

And I don’t even really think marriage is as “holy” as we make it out to be.

 

According to the Census Bureau, about 40% of all marriages ended in divorce. If we really want to get technical in “preserving the sanctity of marriage”, why not go the old fashioned way and get rid of divorce? “Sanctity of marriage”? Wouldn’t we be breaking that oh-so-sacred bond by getting rid of it? I think if we’re going to protect the sanctity of marriage, we need to cover the entire spectrum, meaning us Heteros have gotta pick up our own slack and quit getting married for only 55 hours at a time.

 

Some people don’t even get married in a church anymore! If we really want to preserve the “sanctity of marriage”, let’s just have everyone get married in a church from now on. That way, their marriage is 100% official because obviously it’s holy if it was sanctioned by the church. Athiests? Sorry, not allowed. You gotta invest in the Lord if you want to be recognized as married to your partner, even if you are a hetero. How are you going to raise your children? As a bunch of Godless little hellions? Figures.

 

That brings me to my next argument– child rearing. If children benefit the most from living in a home with both a mother and a father, then sperm banks need only be made available to couples who can’t conceive (who, under the “Marriage is for babymaking” argument, shouldn’t even be married anyway). If a single woman chooses to have a baby on her own, without the help of a man, then she is undermining the role of fathers in society and should have a psychiatric evaluation. She’s also undermining the value of marriage, just like those homosexual couples that want to adopt a child and raise it in a good, loving home. It won’t learn proper gender roles that way! It won’t learn that girls play with Barbie and boys play with Hot Wheels! It won’t learn that sometimes Daddy thinks it’s okay to belittle Mommy and call her names! Proper gender roles, what the fuck is this, the 1950’s?

 

In conclusion, we’ve got to go all-or-nothing on this sanctity of marriage thing, because frankly, it’s not something you can half-ass without obviously favoring one group over the others.

 

 

Please not where and when I was being sarcastic.