Monday, December 22nd, 2014

On Thoughts about A Charlie Brown Christmas

1

Tonight while watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, I noticed something that has escaped my attention for the past three decades.

Early in the episode, Charlie Brown goes to Lucy at her psychiatrist’s booth.  Realizing that Charlie Brown needs some direction in his life, she suggests that he should be the director of the Christmas play.  There’s a Christmas play? says Charlie Brown.  They have everything lined up for the play, Lucy says.  They just need a director.

Wait.

There’s a Christmas play.  They have a venue.  They have a cast that just so happens to consist of all of Charlie Brown’s classmates, friends, and even family.

And Charlie Brown isn’t even aware of the Christmas play?

Are we meant to assume that Charlie Brown is that unaware of the things his friends (like his best friend, Linus) and family (like his sister Sally, to say nothing of his dog) are doing?  Or are we meant to assume that everyone conspired to keep the Christmas play from Charlie Brown?

The former makes Charlie Brown out to look like a total idiot.

The latter makes everyone look bloody cruel.

I think we’re supposed to come away with both interpretations.  I can’t get a hypothetical conversation out of my mind where Charlie Brown asks Linus or Sally where they’ve been and they tell them about the Christmas play that he knows nothing about.  No one comes out looking good here.

And remember, A Charlie Brown Christmas is meant to be uplifting and heartwarming.

On a happier Charlie Brown Christmas note, here‘s everything you ever wanted to know about the soundtrack album and its multiple releases.  Including where to find the piece of music that plays when Snoopy decorates his doghouse for the contest.

Comments

One Response to “On Thoughts about A Charlie Brown Christmas”
  1. this is a letter i had initially addressed to bill o’reilly, in response to something he said, but i know that it can relate to rush limbaugh, sean hannity, glenn beck, feminists, gays, as well as masculine apologists and anyone else with gender-identity issues.

    commenting on a church’s cancellation of some type of christmas play featuring charlie brown, bill o’reilly said these words: “secular progressivism wants to destroy the christian holiday”.  while i don’t take issue with this statement at all, i must point out the ways in which bill o’reilly is “buying into” the progressive democrats’ destruction of the ideals that have contributed to the strength and the success of america.

    maybe bill o’reilly is fighting the intolerant and anti-christian viewpoints of the left, but he is walking in lock-step with another weakness-promoting aspect of the left – and that is the subjugation of gender.

    by referring to members of the taller/wider/stronger gender as “guys,” and by never failing to refer to members of the egg-bleeding/milk-spouting/lesser gender as “women,” bill o’reilly is buying into the political correctness of the left which kowtows to a notion as ridiculous as “gender equality” (as well as the words “a woman can do anything a man can do”).

    now, as long as they’re not competing against men, it may seem like women are just as capable as men…but the very existence of gender-based sports teams surely places an asterisk after the “anything a man can do” line.

    by referring to members of the apt gender as “guys”while referring to members of the menstruating gender as “women,” bill o’reilly (as well as society in general) is subjugating men through the undue respect of females.  referring to men as “guys” rather than “men” is as disrespectful as referring to females as “broads”.  in today’s society, we have any egg-bleeding and milk-spouting specimen of motherhood being referred to as a “woman,” but it seems that the only way anyone is going to refer to a man by using the word “man,” is if the man has accomplished something that is worthy of respect.  “he’s not a MAN,” says the angry ex-wife with much contempt for who she disrespects.  “you’re not a MAN,” says the straight man, contemptuously to the masculivoid who looks at men with a crooked type of misunderstanding that beckons him to take a closer look at men.

    gay “men” and “strong” women – these masculine slights are the only ones who are given the letters M-E-N.  this is compromise of masculine integrity, plain and simple, and it is contributing as much to the deconstruction of america as is the tolerance of muslims.

    aside from being ironic, it’s kind of oxymoronic (if that is a word) for there to be a buzz-phrase like “strong women” or even “gay men”.  i say this because the “strong woman” lacks the physical makeup to be anything but “strong FOR A woman,” just as the muscular “gay man” lacks the gender-identity/emotional makeup to be anything but the classic “kid in a candy store” when he’s around half-naked men.  “manly for a gay,” “strong for a woman,” this is how the integrity of men and masculinity is slighted.  “manly for someone who hasn’t internalized masculine gender-identity,” “strong for someone who lacks the physical attributes of a masculine body,” this is how the integrity of men and masculinity is slighted, because if a woman can be considered “strong” and if a gay guy can be considered “manly” then the very essence of manhood is compromised

    there is a reason for the “parking for pregnant women” signs, there is a reason for the gender-based sports teams, there is a reason that the coney island hot dog eating competition had to add a “womens’ division”.  the reason is that females are somewhat disabled when compared to men, just as gay “men” are somewhat disabled and rendered dazed or confused when faced with real men.  yet, the buzz-phrases “strong women” and “gay men” are commonplace, while the average man is not a man but only a dismissible “guy”.

    so, the next time anyone suggests that people stand up to democrats and their hatred of religious holidays, they should be reminded that standing up to democrats’ deconstruction of america means standing up to feminists’ dismissal of men.

    let me be clear and say that i’m not in any way suggesting that every man should rape any feminist with a carving knife so that her vagina bleeds more profusely than it does during her normal monthly egg-leak.  i realize that womens’ penis-receptacles are necessary tools for men to use just to further the very existence of the human race.  i also am not suggesting that we stop basing physical competitions on gender, for i realize that gender-based sports teams are necessary to keep sports competitive.  we must keep sports competitive, because with females fighting for equal representation where they don’t belong…well, let me just ask this question: who’d want to see a 5 second boxing match between a strong woman and a broad-shouldered, thickly-built specimen of muscle who exercises with weights that are three times as heavy as the ones at curves fitness centers?

    as prince sung in a song from the 1989 film called “batman,” i will answer my own question: “NO…BO..DY”.

    dylan terreri, i
    http://www.femalebashing.com
    http://www.strongwomen.info
    http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays

    Firefox 16.0 Firefox 16.0 Windows XP Windows XP