I don't know how I feel about this video blogger:
twisted broad video blog on Louis C.K.
because I haven't seen enough of her. Her tag is "twisted broad" and she's a 40something wife and parent who opinionates on her youtube videoblogs.
However, this one video blog entry, linked above, struck me because she's talking back - politely - to the "most popular kid in class" culturally, and it's Louis C.K.
Her headline, when she works up to it, is YOUR KID IS NOT YOU.
The Louis C.K. reference was what caught my eye, because recently, talking to someone about VM, a someone who has to market themselves in their own work, and talking with them about LM ("Little Moir", Virtue and Moir's three year old daughter), the person I was talking to remarked that somebody ought to have told Louis C.K. not to discuss his small child's private parts in his act, because that would really suck when the girl got older. Nobody apparently said DUDE, NO. Louis C.K. is being all real, so he's gonna go there, he's an obviously compassionate guy, obviously loves his kid, and this is who he is. His intent is not to harm -- and his kid is material. And it's universal. And she'll have to deal. I guess.
Getting to the LM part: Here, twistedbroad is disputing Louis C.K.'s lament about smart-phone dependent kids, and how nostalgic he is for his own tech-free upbringing. Her perspective is smart phones are here, and someone of their generation, including her generation, can't relate to what it means to grow up with today's technology (versus adapt to completely new technology as it's introduced). She disputes his POV that smart phones rob kids of empathy, alienate them from human interaction and thwart human connection. She dislikes his generalizations and his personalization. She claims her own kids are capable of putting down their phones and having a conversation, and that's because she gets to know her kids and it's because all kids aren't the same, and it's because it makes a difference if you don't alienate yourself from the environment your children occupy. As I'm describing it here she sounds like one of those assholes, but she goes into it thoroughly, and I get what she means and she has a point. Her main point is - the kid with the smart phone isn't Louis C.K. Her point is HER kids aren't her. So she (and Louis C.K.) can't impose their nostalgia or their uninformed (because it's simply not their experience) perspective on how negatively the smart phone is going to impact their kid's maturation and ability to relate/empathize/connect. And it's also unfair to impose on your child the way you want to feel about things (that one made me think of Tessa).
AND she says - Louis C.K. has no idea what it's like to have a famous parent. He has no clue. His daughter does. He doesn't. He doesn't know what it's like to have a parent that's famous that everybody loves and maybe you feel like crap and you're keeping it secret (she's not saying his kid feels like crap, she's saying his kid is not him, and his kid is having an experience that is completely different than Louis C.K.'s experience in life and possibly the phone helps. YOUR KID IS NOT YOU).
That's when I thought about LM and some of the shit VM have done either without a fucking thought about the blowback when she's older, or with the almighty arrogance that they know how it's going to affect her. Irrevocable, no turning back shit, from the exclusion of her throughout their Olympic careers while they simultaneously shout out everybody from their neices to their SYTYCD choreographer to their freaking buddies, to the revolting salacious fake gf image litter all over the web, to the "reality" show where mom and dad are telling us how honest they are while lying through their teeth before turning around and showcasing every media whore in their lives including their families and closest friends, and exclude their child, and then they bang the drum telling the world this is the real them.
They apparently already have met 12 year old Little Moir and know it's going to be fine with her and she's not going to feel like shit. They already talked it over with 30 year old Little Moir and know it's fine with her she's not anywhere on the record in her storied parents' careers and she has nothing public to show her grandchildren. (History is public. It's not private. Otherwise wouldn't all the scrapbooks Scott's freaking "buddies" have, all their memories, all their images, all their shared experiences with Scott and Tessa be enough? All the home videos? Why do they need a reality show to show off to US? They treat us like garbage. Why the need?* Because it's PUBLIC. THAT's history. They then become part of the permanent record.).
Nope. Tessa and Scott have spoken with 12 year old Little Moir and 30 year old Little Moir and she understands she's meant to be grateful and think the same way they think.
Or maybe Kate signed off on it all and that's good enough. After all, she raised Tessa. How could she be wrong?
Look at the decisions Tessa and Scott have made - look at their choices, their choices not to do things, side by side with the proactive choices they've made - how there's no wriggle room. How everything is all in, no exit strategy, no safety net or gray area. There's no - what if we're wrong? They've left nothing in the margins for "what if this doesn't play out for her as we've been counseled it would."
Nope. All in. On a child's life experience as she grows, repeatedly and purposefully compounded with every word out of their mouths, so there's not even the potential of Scott and Tessa saying "We made a mistake." Or "We were caught up." It's deliberate. It's concerted. It's intentional. It's repeated. They're fully aware.
They have no idea what it's like to be her, or will be like to be her, left with the detritus of Scott and Tessa's decisions, and they did it anyway. It's good to see the humility and the empathy. Maybe we can blame Scott and Tessa's smart phones? I, personally, think Windsor U's psych program has a lot to answer for.
I also know that no legitimate family counselor or psychologist who wasn't a star fucker would co-sign 80% of what they've put in public, knowing they have a child.
That, I think, is another component of the sham that makes people recoil from Scott and Tessa and knocks us sideways with the arrogance. They don't know shit about her because they don't know what it's like to have themselves for parents. They're imposing they're own piety on her (all of this is holy on our part because we're keeping her OUT of the public eye) without calculating the effect of the shit they choose to put IN the public eye.
Scott and Tessa are faux-private parents whose tech and social media savvy, culturally speaking, begins and ends at text messaging. That's obvious just watching them anywhere else. They don't know cause and effect, how a relates to b, they have no long game, they don't know what consistency means, they don't follow through the logical implications of about half of what comes out of their mouths.
For me, it's the two things in combination that are a horror. What they chose to keep out (HER) and what they chose to put in public.
When they make a choice about one, that needs, for her sake, to impact the choices they make about the second. It didn't. They wanted it both ways. It's keeping her out combined with what they chose to put in where the arrogance asserted itself. They didn't follow through on the respect they ought to have shown her, the respect that we must pretend initially drove their decision to keep her existence unacknowledged in the first place. If you keep someone out to protect them, following through means you have to be mindful of what you decide to put in. They weren't and aren't.
*Even Scott, a long time ago (way before the Olympics) was on his fb trying to get good, professional pictures of Skate Canada. What? Alma wasn't there with the camera? Why was Scott trying to get hooked up with the public material?