I agree that it's probably a tradition in the Foster's universe to get rid of your IF when you "outgrow" it. Just like having an imaginary friend past a certain age is leered at in our society, although in their universe the IFs are flesh-and-blood, living creatures.

Mac's mom obviously isn't an evil person, seeing how she treats Mac. She loves him, she just doesn't understand how deep the bond between him and Bloo is.

Right, Mom isn't evil or necessarily mean by any means. Still, even if this were a tradition to give up IFs, I still don't find it okay to give up someone that's very important to a person's life. I find that unacceptable.

It would depend on Frankie's mood when she confronted Mac's mom. (i.e. Herriman had been getting on her nerves all day, or Mac being a big help at Foster's recently.)

Well, in the event that Mac's mom ever finds out about Mac going to Foster's, and when she goes to confront him, after the percieved confrontation between Frankie and Mac's mom, I think that if she still doesn't approve of Mac going to Foster's, I'm sure Madame Foster would talk with her and tell her that she likes it when Mac comes around. I'm sure after that, she would let him continue going because of the prase of a "little old lady" who finds Mac to be a sweet boy and would be upset if he couldn't come any more.

Okay this is kind of weird. I was playing BFAHP and Mac said that his mom made a cake for Madame Foster. So according to the game she already knows.

Mac's mom is a cool character. She does care for her children and works a lot. Mac's mom appears in a Foster episode once or twice in each season.

Yeah I remember that. I think I may have screencapped it. I think I mentioned it on the forum too but I forget where.

I think the writers of the game just don't know the score. ;)

Btw, will we ever see her face? 8D

In Foster's universe, Imaginary Friends are regarded with the same wide range of sympathy as cats and dogs in our universe. In our universe, one person with a dog who had to move would spend lots of time and money searching for an apartment that allows dogs, and perhaps even live in a place below their standards to keep their pet. Other people would give their dog to a friend or find them new home. Other people would just drop them off at a local shelter, and other people still would abandon the dog in a park or even have them put down. I personally would make the sacrifices to keep my dog, but who am I to judge those who would find them a new home?? How about people who give up their pet because they have behavior problems or are too large and hyper for their children?

Where does the line of sympathy stop? Some people will do anything for a dog or cat, but many don't care about "lesser" pets like hamsters, ferrets, rats, snakes, goldfish etc. Where would Imaginary Friends fit?

Mac's Mom just has a lower regard for IF's than Mac or the Foster's. She's not a bad person, and in fact, she opted to find a new home for Bloo not because she is cold, but because she felt keeping Bloo was hindering her son's development. Even if she was wrong, can we question her intentions?

That sums it up pretty well from what I observed from pilot summaries. (It's not that I'm a casual viewer, but a hunger for deeper insight that leads me to reading episode guides.) On the whole, Mac's mom seems like she wants the best for him, even if she might not see things from her perspective. And given that she's a single (she is, right?) working mom, and he's a fun-loving, if conscientious young kid, there's a bit of a divide there. Not that it's anything harmful though.

Thank you very much for the clarification, Ms. Faust. :)

I find it interesting that IF’s are given the same range of sympathy as a household pet. I disagree, but I find it fascinating. However, it leads me to ask this: why is that? Given that IF is created by a human being, doesn’t that made the vast majority of them (excluding animal friends like Chewy and the imaginary puppies, and “object friends,” such as Oveny from “Cookie Dough”) human by default?

But I’m not here to ponder the finer points of where IF’s fall into the social spectrum of Foster’s universe; the purpose of this thread is to discuss Mac’s mother. In some ways, I can understand her reasons (as I perceive them) for sending Bloo away-- she wants only the best for Mac, just as any mother would want. I know that under similar circumstances, my parents would have done the exact same thing if they thought it would be beneficial to me. I’m not necessarily supporting or denouncing her decisions and actions; I’m simply saying that I understand them.

It goes along the same lines as why is it ok to eat dogs in some countries, and not in others. Some may say that dogs are obviously more intelligent and/or obviously emotional than other animals and that makes them eligible for higher regard. We think it's awful to eat horses, but they do it in Europe. Indians are appalled that we kill cows here in the States, but we don't regard them highly at all.

Even closer along the lines in the show, is humankind's history of giving one type of person more or less rights than others. It still happens all over the world. Even here. Is it right or wrong? Who's to say, but it happens, and that's the way it is for IF's in Foster's. They're at the mercy of whoever cares for them and how they regard their worth.

I always wanted to make a show about the Friends having to hang around outside while Mac was in a store or restaurant where IF's were not allowed inside--- we could never make a whole story out of that, though.

Hmmm, like segregation...interesting. I suppose that the closest the show came to touching upon something like that would be the potential venues of employment in "Setting a President" which specifically stated that they would not employ imaginary friends.

sort of... but you have to remember, even though they talk and are sentient, Imaginary Friends are NOT human beings.

Imagine being a restaurant owner and having an IF like Sloppy Moe or George Mucous in your restaurant.

Exactly.

I think that Imaginary Friends would be more of a taboo than cats, dogs, or other commonly accepted pets. Even if not for the repulsiveness of those two, IFs would probably be considered to be too juvenile.

With the possible exception of Jackie Khones, of course. :jk:

Where I live, some of the HUMANS are nastier, stinkier and sloppier than any of the IF's, and I'm NOT exaggerating!

It's interesting, that just a few weeks ago, my pastor and I(he's a BIG fan of the show, by the way), and my father, who is a lay minister himself, got into a discussion as to a hypothetical situation where we humans suddenly found ourselves sharing the planet with a species which is equal to us in every respect-not just sentient and capable of complex language, but also MORALLY equal-able to make decisions based on an individual AND collective sense of what's right or what's wrong, and to comprehend how their actions can affect not just others around them now, but even down the road, in the future. That would certainly characterize the Imaginary Friends in the "Foster's Universe". While they are not human, especially in terms of looks, they DO share with us the very things that we tend to think of as truly separating us from other animal species. My dogs, no matter how smart or well-trained they are, for instance, show no indication that they are aware of how their actions will affect anyone other than themselves. They don't worry about starving dogs in other parts of the world, or future generations of dogs, when they do something. They just do it. In this respect, I believe that the analogy of Imaginary Friends with various races of human is more accurate, and yes, even now, here in the US, we DO still treat certain people differently, based on their looks, how they talk, how they dress, or what they believe in. The key difference is that at least, there are laws established to protect people from such discrimination, within reasonable limits. A restaurant still has the rights to keep a person out if that person is improperly dressed, or really filthy, or exhibiting inappropriate behavior, like cursing, for instance. While Sloppy Moe or George Mucous might not be able to help how they are, I don't think anyone could argue that they would not pose at least an unpleasant distraction, if not a health hazard, to other patrons of the same restaurant, but then, where would you draw the line? If a business could prohibit someone like them from entering, what about someone like Wilt, who isn't stinky or slimy and certainly knows how to behave in public. So yeah, from my perspective, as someone who is old enough to recall times here in the South when certain races would have been treated as inferior, I would say that the comparison with how the Imaginary Friends are treated with how certain humans were treated at that time is a more accurate one. I, personally, do not consider them inferior or "lower" because they don't look like me, or came into existence in a different manner from me, but at the same time, but then, another person who has not had my experiences or grown up in the culture that I did, could see things differently. I can't consider my grandfather, for instance, who was one of my closest family members when he was still alive, to be "evil" or "bad" because for most of his life, he honestly believed that Black people were less than human and that the Civil Rights movement was the ultimate downfall of this country. That's just what he was taught, and there was no alternative, no other school of thought available to him for most of his life. I suppose that Mac's mother would be similar in how SHE views Imaginary Friends.

On that, though, continuing with the analogy of Imaginary Friends and other races or sectors of the human populace, that no one can arbitrarily "give" rights to any one group. Those who stand to gain, or lose, the most-in this case, the Imaginary Friends-are the one who have to take it upon themselves to stand up and prove their worth and equality, and while some might very well choose to pursue that, others would be just as likely to remain content with the status quo. That decision would ultimately be up to them.

pitbulllady

That's the dilemma right there. While there may be some imaginary friends who'd pose something of a hygiene problem to restaurants and other such venues, there'd also many others, like Mr. Herriman, for example, who'd be far more dignified and orderly than a lot of the human patrons, and who could complain that it's unfair to lump them all into the same catagory upon such grounds. And yet, if such distinctions were made, those IFs within the "less desirable" catagories could argue that this would constitute discrimination, upon the grounds that they can't help being designed as they are. IFs may not be human, but, as PBL points out, the notion of "rights" in itself is a highly arbitrary and subjective one, and the fact that they possess speech and sentience does at least give them the power to demand equal rights, however likely they actually are to achieve them. It's the same kind of ethical dilemma we'd be liable to face if an artifically intelligent lifeform ever became self-aware, I guess.

Erm, so, Mac's mother...I wonder if she has facial scarring?

I know i wouldn't want bloo in my restaurant thats for sure.

I think it would be sort of unfair to put the onus on the IFs, since it would be evident they would be worthy of respect. Getting into why would open up a whole different can of worms though.

Yeah, I'm sure Bloo would either start a foodfight and/or call the waiters/waitresses "rip off artists" and kick them in the shin when they gave Bloo his bill.

Though the idea of Mac being in a store/restaurant that doesn't allow IF's could be made into an episode, if not a full 30 minute episode, they could make it a short like "Phone Home."

I could imagine that Bloo would try many different ways to get into the store/restaurant without success until he finally gets in and causes a big commotion which embarrasses Mac.

Also, sorry for keeping silent for so long. Teletoon hasn't shown any new episodes after "Cheese A Go-go".

Thing is- and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before- does Foster's Home need to be a secret?

What would be the worst thing that would happen if Mac told her that he goes to Fosters every day?

Would she try and make him stop?

If you catch the season 4 episode "Infernal Slumber", Mac does in fact mention that he doesn't tell his mother about his daily visits and that if she did find out then she will make him stop.

Infernal Slumber was the only time that plot point was really brought up throughout the course of the series, because it served as the dramatic tension that fueled the plot of that episode, IE: Bloo holding a spontaneous slumber party at Mac's apartment in the wee hours of the morning.

^Well said. Mac's mother also said he had to get rid of Bloo, so she probably wouldn't approve of Mac seeing him every day at Foster's Home.

I just think it would be better if they got it out of the way early on, and not keep Fosters a secret from her. It would just seem more satisfying and convenient. A bit of a pity we never got to see a meeting with Frankie and Mrs. Mac's Mother, as that has real potential

I've not seen Infernal Slumber yet, but despite my preference it still sounds like a great premise.

Well it was implied that part of the reason why Mac's Mom wanted to him to get rid of Bloo in the first place is that she wanted him to "grow up" so to speak, and hanging on to that cherished symbol of child hood the Imaginary friend would be detrimental to that end.

As for why Mac's mother would think of all imaginary friends as purely childish entities despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Well I think living with the 2'nd most annoying imaginary friend in the world (Bloo) for five years and living next door to the most annoying imaginary friend in the cosmos (Cheese) would kind of warp ones view of the whole IF thing to that line of thinking. :p

That said if Mac's mother did find out that Mac was still hanging around in what she might consider to be a childish environment, then she'll might see it as threat to her sons development and of course put a stop to it.

Ah, OK. That makes sense.

I don't want to end up repeating what has been said in eairlier posts, but do we assume Mom works till late everyday? Or is she home around the time Mac comes home from school? I don't think it is legal to leave a 8-year-old and a 13-year-old home alone. Either way, I imagine Mac says he is going to a friends house everyday if his absence is questioned.


Despite an absent Dad and a bully brother I don't imagine Mac's life before Fosters was miserable or depressing. But do we think she has been a bad mother to Mac? After all, he does have very strong morals.

Don't think I'm over-analyzing a fun cartoon too much, I'm just trying to get an idea of this part of the setting more

I'm trying to remember when Mac always says he needs to get back home, I'm thinking it's 6. I've always thought that Mac needs to get home because that's when his mom gets home. And in the episode "Infernal Slumber", she gets up at 5 so, now I'm wondering if she works 12 hour shifts every day (6am-6pm). Hmm... And as for it being il/legal for kids that age to be left home alone, it really depends where you're from I'm sure, and exactly how long they're home alone. I know in my country there are plenty of 12 and 13 year old babysitters who babysit younger kids while the parents work, so they could be home alone for up to 8 hours at a time (although, if the parent is going to be gone that long, they'd probably aim for a babysitter older than 13). And as for being home alone for only a few hours, it's not uncommon for many school age kids (age 7+) to do so every day.

There are plenty of people who think she has, but I personally don't think so. She's just a protective mother, perhaps a little over-protective. But that doesn't make her "bad". I've personally always seen a very melancholy side to Mac, and imagined that's due to what he went through when his parents divorced, maybe feeling his father abandoned him or doesn't love him. But you're right, he has good morals, and I'm sure it was primarily his mother who taught them to him.

Perhaps Mac's told his mom he's part of some after school clubs/groups so she's most likely thinks he's staying after school.

Though I wonder how Mac's mom would react if he brought Goo home (provided Goo doesn't blab about Fosters or Imaginary friends :gooblab: :macwor:)

I'm surprised the creators never answer what would happen if his mom knew that Mac has visited Bloo and even if she has. Would she be mad at him for it? Plus, they never go into who or what her imaginary friend is or what he (or she) looks like. XD

Yeah. It'd be interesting to see that Mac's Mom knows that he visits Fosters.

Or what her face looks like. lol

It took us many years until miss Bellum's face got revealed.

They say they based Franky on Lauren Faust of all people!

So the question is? Who did they base Mac's mom on..... XD

Where did you hear that Frankie was based off of Lauren? Pretty sure Lauren the explorer was based off of Lauren as a kid.

I heard it from Lauren herself, at a Foster's panel during Comic-Con several years ago. Explorin' Lauren was based on her as well. :lauren:

Kinda related to the thread. But someone has drawn a picture of Mac's mom with a face.

https://desu-usergeneratedcontent.xy...9422177109.jpg

It's fanart. But good fanart by an artist online.

It's...

horrifying?

but also canonically reassuring.

:( not sure how to feel. :wiltshock:

I have the same emotions as you do bloo.

I wish like we saw a canon version of it, like we did with Ms. Bellum in PPG.

Me too dude. Me too.