Downsized . . . a bit

So, did anyone else watched "Downsized"? It seemed to me to be a show about a plucky family who rode the wave of financial wealth and then abruptly lost it. How unfortunate! The Hubby--mine, not the one on the show--nearly ruined any interest or enjoyment I thought I might draw from the show. After every segment he said, "I don't like this" or "What is this?" And he was really annoyed every time there was shot of the house; there's nothing poverty-level about that house, he repeated over and over. I wanted him to hush so I could zone out and watch TV. But eventually I had my own questions.

• Is anyone wondering why these people have so many children? I understand the blended family dynamics, but weathering this financial storm would be less of a catastrophe with fewer children. Isn't this the question asked of many other families living at poverty level?
• Why do they look so good? (Okay, this was another of The Hubby's questions) The haircuts looked fresh and fly. The clothes were not tattered. One of the children was gifted a new (to her) car; how would she pay for gas and other car expenses? Isn't this a question asked of other families living at poverty level?
• After a frustrating trip to the grocery store wherein one of the daughters had to put back almost all of the food because there wasn't enough money on the food stamps card, the mother reminds her that their state of being was temporary. It was a moment, I think, meant to elicit compassion from the audience. And it did. The girl was embarrassed that people she knew saw her using welfare. But aren't there many people for whom this will be a constant state of being? Do we feel more sorry for this family? Shouldn't they just be grateful to have anything to eat at all? Shouldn't the daughter just suck it up and get over herself? Isn't this a question asked of other families living at poverty level?
• The father states more than once that they got themselves into this and they'll get themselves out. That seems to sit nicely into the American ideology of work ethic and merit. But should the state (i.e. "us") be helping "them" dig their way out of a mess of their own making? Isn't this a question asked of other families living at poverty level?

My point is not to bash this family. I can understand how life can turn you upside down and shake the stuffing right out of you. I bet everyone can understand that these days. Do we understand it, though, when most of the country is living high on the hog, as this family was one short year ago? Do we understand how one (or two or three) miscalculation or poor decision can totally derail a family? Especially when that misstep is paired with some other glitches that are not of one's own doing? Do we understand how people make decisions about the sacrifices they need to make based on their own definitions of quality of life? that those decisions may or may not reflect what other people think are appropriate? that they may or may not be directly related to morality or character?

I'm just wondering about the narrative that frames this show. I think, to take a note from Christine O'Donnell, that this family is supposed to be "us." That we should ask how we see ourselves in them. But is this the question we ask about other families living at poverty level? Just wondering.

You ain't got to go home, but . . .

I believe in complaint letters. In fact, I just wrote one about the horrible service we just received at a restaurant. The first time I wrote one was to the local newspaper after a night of hanging out with friends and being harrassed by mall cops. I think I'm going to have to write another one soon--also about mall cops.


Hubby and I were shopping at the mall today with the children and noticed that there seemed to be mall cops everywhere. Initally, I thought that they were looking for a particular teenager because they seemed to be stopping the same type of people and directing them to leave the mall. Then I saw that they were also stopping girls. It was like watching hunters seeking out prey. They were relentless, like flies on poop.

Finally, we discovered that there is a new program in place that requires anyone under 18 to be accompanied by an adult after 4pm. My husband thinks this is a fabulous idea, but I uncomfortable with it. As I looked at the boys being escorted out of the mall or pulling out IDs, I imagined my son. It was hard, but I tried to see him even in the ones dressed inappropriately (by my standards) or who seemed less than cooperative. I thought of my daughter when I saw the obvious time put into outfits meant to impress some smooth talking boy. There were officers everywhere, at every entrance, talking on radios about how many kids were coming to the door now. There were making notes in little notebooks and almost chasing the teenagers out of the doors. They seemed to be treating them as if they had done something wrong just by being there. And it was 4 o'clock! Where are these children supposed to go? What else will they find to do and where will they do it?

Remember the "The Cosby Show" when Vanessa hears through the rumor mill that her boyfriend has broken up with her? She finally calls him and he tells her that what he actually said was that he hopes they never break up. "Let's meet at the mall!" She says. Now where would Vanessa go to meet her boyfriend without a safe, public space full of adults where they could walk around innocently holding hands?

Hubby attributes this decision to the recession and the need to fill the mall with shoppers who might appreciate being free of pesky teenagers. I guess it's supposed to make people spend more money. But if I were 16 or 17 years old and wanted to get a bite to eat with friends or buy a cute outfit at Forever 21, I'd be annoyed that I couldn't simply because it was 6 o'clock on a Saturday.