In it, but also against it.

Recently in the zine Moonroutes I found this passage by Jackie Wang:

As a white, lower-middle class, gender-and-otherwise-queer, I'm struggling with how to remember to "Live in it but also: against it". As I fill out my applications for grad school part of me hungers for legitimacy; to be let into and recognized by the system. For an artist/writer such recognition is often crucial to financial survival.

But I will to work to ensure that my hunger for "success" is equaled by my hunger to understand "the hidden brutality" that my life depends on. I know that my ability to further my craft has been enabled by the resources I've personally been afforded. Such resources have not been given to others (who have creative and critical capacities just like I do) as a means of systematic silencing/erasure. I don't want to forget that I am lucky to have the chance to TRY and be heard. If I forget I will become more complicit in the oppression that I am living in.

Part of being "in it but also against"  for me it means remembering to trust that the people dehumanized by our culture are no less capable of creating incredible artistic and literary content than I am.

It's arrogant of me with all my privilege to assume I'm above oppression just by knowing that it exists. I need to actively talk about who we are leaving out and who has been left out historically.

When we leave out the historical and current realties of oppression the context is incomplete. Any art viewed or created without acknowledgment of how it fits into the oppressive systems of our culture is missing context. I can't always fight under the simple, safe, and vague banner of "equality". Sometimes I need to be against something. Because I am never not participating in the status quo.

There is a danger in thinking about equality for the less privileged in oversimplified terms. When those of us with a particular privilege talk about equality one of the things we are talking about is equalizing the distribution of that privilege and extending access to people without that privilege.

When those in power are afraid of sharing the privilege of deciding what is and isn't going to be part of our cultural future we/they end up replicating the current status quo. There may be a(n appropriated) veneer of marginalized culture in order to bill such efforts as progressive and "for equality", but the exclusion of oppressed voices is still happening under the surface.

Nowhere is this gatekeeping more flagrant than in the creative/artistic world. An unfortunate side effect of capitalism is the misconception that good art can only be created in environments of excess. While there is some merit to Virginia Woolf's Room of One's Own in terms of people needing subsistence and access to seclusion for gaining and maintaining  mastery of artistic craft, it's foolish to think that good art is only produced the privileged.

To think that depth of experience and expression are only possible for people who's experiences include privilege further dehumanizes marginalized people and can even serve to justify the current dehumanization they suffer.

Those of us already privileged by the status quo who seek to end this and be advocates for equality need to remember that those we are advocating for aren't likely to want the exact same privileges we have. We should also remember that those we extend resources to aren't likely to use our now shared privileges in a way that is familiar or comfortable to us.

Practically advocating for people with less privilege means imagining and accepting uses of resources that differ from current or even currently imagined uses. The only way to forge a more equal world involves trusting in the creative and critical capacity of the oppressed. We must see shared privileges/resources not as a cost or even a sacrifice to the future of equality, but as a simple an necessary act of collaboration. In such sharing resources simply and freely it mean surrendering any expectations previously held about how such resources might be used. Equality won't look like what those in power think it will look like.

Orange is the New Black and Trojan Horse Tactics

In a lot of ways Piper was my Trojan Horse. You're not going to go into a network and sell a show on really fascinating tales of black women, and Latina women, and old women and criminals. But if you take this white girl, this sort of fish out of water, and you follow her in, you can then expand your world and tell all of those other stories. But it's a hard sell to just go in and try to sell those stories initially. The girl next door, the cool blonde, is a very easy access point, and it's relatable for a lot of audiences and a lot of networks looking for a certain demographic. It's useful.

- Jenji Kohan, creator of Orange is the New Black

I find the use of the "trojan horse" clever but not heroic. I understand and respect Kohan's use of this tactic. I am incredibly glad that her show Orange is the New Black exists. I love it (and it's problematic elements). What I find unfortunate, nay, deeply annoying is that such a masking maneuver is necessary for those looking to tell the stories of non-white, queer, and otherwise marginalized women of color.

I don't hate the trojan horse tactic of making progressive media. I think it can be a powerful tool, but it is a tool that is primarily used to educate and entertain the kind of people who will be placated by the white, well-off, conventionally attractive, seemingly straight main character. This is important because it squarely aims the show at a white, straight, "conventional" sort of audience.

I guess one of the things I'm upset about is that this show can't really be claimed by women of women of color or poor women as full representations. Non-white and poor characters are featured prominently but the show itself is not about them.

The trojan horse approach to making media is problematic because it does two things simultaneously.

1. In order to be passable to the gatekeepers of Hollywood it puts forth a conventionally acceptable protagonist (white, well off, good looking, seemingly straight) which reinforces the cultural view of who's narratives are acceptable & worth our cultural attention.

2. It panders to the audience of straight, white, well off viewers. The reason Hollywood's gatekeepers give again and again for why people like Piper must be in the foreground is that "it's what the people want".

On this second point I call bull. As someone who has tendency to distrust and dehumanize people with wealth, I don't think that white wealthy straight people (the "they" the gatekeepers are referring to) want to continue to see the boring parade of people who are similar to them dance across their screens. I bet they are bored.

Special letter to the 5 straight white people who read my blog:

Seriously folks, aren't you bored? Aren't you yawning from the painful ease it is to always sympathize with the protagonists Hollywood pushes out? Don't you want to have a protagonist that is viciously different from you? Don't you want to see the world from the eyes of someone the world has insulated you from empathizing with (like say Suzanne AKA Crazy Eyes)? I know you are capable of empathizing with people who are different from you. Can you call up those gatekeepers and tell them you are bored and that you are not as stupid as they think you are? You don't need to be coddled as an audience. Let Hollywood know that having a protagonist with a different race, sexual orientation, or class status than yours will not make you loose your shit? Tell the gatekeepers you're an adult and can handle empathizing with people who don't look like you.

Thanx,
WRM

An Open Letter to anyone confused or enraged by the exchange between Miley Cyrus and Sinead O'Connor

I usually don't write much about pop culture, but the confusion and divisiveness surrounding the recent exchange between Miley Cyrus and Sinead O'Connor has been so intense both in what I have read and within myself that I had to write something about it.

First, I don't think it allows for much room for complexity when those of us watching and commenting on the exchange between these two women to call it a "feud". It only serves to generate further animosity to encourage divisiveness between two people. There is a conflict here but calling it a feud and taking up sides does nothing to encourage resolution.

Because I do not wish to add any fuel to the perception of their exchange as a feud I need to state immediately that I wish to take the side of neither party. Or rather I want to take both their sides because this is not a case of one musician against another. It is a case of all creators and women against the oppressive force of patriarchy and the vicious capitalist exploits of the music industry.

I have not seen and have no desire to see the Wrecking Ball video. I generally avoid Cyrus's work if I can. I find her oeuvre boring and vulgar. I don't find her work vulgar because of the sex/nudity. The amount of sexuality isn't vulgar, the way she replicates the patriarchy and appropriates black/hood culture when doing so is what disgusts me.

When she performed at the VMAs I made a few disapproving tweets and left it at that. I helped that many amazing feminist and anti-racist writers immediately identified the offensively problematic elements of that performance (literal objectification of WOC and unabashed appropriation of black culture to name a VERY few). I even thought it a strange sort of fortune that the problematic elements of that performance where were so obviously racist that even those with little exposure to anti-oppression could notice (kind of like how Seth McFarlane's Oscar hosting was SO sexist that people DID notice and were disgusted).

This week however, with Sinead's open letter and Miley's response there is less obvious stuff going on. It's unfortunately extremely public and very contentious. This is a hard knot of colliding and intersecting oppressions.

If you have not done so please read Sinead's letter to Miley now because I'm going to respond to specific components.


Before I get to the critiquing part I want to commend Sinead for trying to warn Miley about the predatory and exploitative nature of the music industry (and let's be honest the world at large). I am open to the reality that this realization might come as a "duh" to Miley (whose been around the industry her whole life), but it IS one that anyone working within that industry would benefit from remembering and strategizing against.

So yeah. I'm all for Sinead's call for Miley to be vigilant about the ways in which the music industry is trying to exploit her (we should ALL be more vigilant about the ways in which patriarchal capitalist systems are looking to exploit us), but that is where my support stops. And where Sinead begins doing some pretty subtle and serious concern trolling. I recognize the bravery and concern it takes to attempt and intervention but it needs to be done respectfully and in several ways this Sinead's open letter just wasn't.

My biggest beefs can be boiled down to two basic complaints:

1.) The use of "prostitution" as a linguistic scare tactic. It completely throws sex workers under the bus to use their profession as a means of degrading comparison. I'm harkened back to the maddening distinction Tyra banks so loved to tout when it came to shaming any contestant of ANTM who'd had any history at all of stripping/exotic dancing. Using the language of prostitution in this derogatory fashion creates a hierarchy of women who are either worthy of human decency or who aren't and clearly those who "sell themselves" as Sinead puts it are less worthy of human treatment, which means... protection apparently which bring me to my second point

2.) "You ought be protected as a precious young lady".

In this we find the most glaring example of concern trolling and victim blaming. All of my fears that were stirred up by Sinead's use of the word "prostitution" were suddenly confirmed. For Sinead "lady"=someone worth saving/protection=someone not a prostitute. In conversation about the letter yesterday a friend was brave enough to share with me that Sinead's letter had reminded her of a time when on a trip through europe with friends she had been asked by their parents to cover up her breasts more carefully because they might attract dangerous attention from men.

The problem in Sinead's call for protection & my friend's story are the same: that women are somehow inciting the violence and oppression that exists in the world. And that if they just behaved as proper ladies (and covered up) they would be "protected".

This idea is sexist and exclusionary. The idea that she should be "protected" is bunk. It denies her agency and does nothing to challenge the reality that the world is dangerous in ways beyond the control or any one person (protector or protected). Protection and preventative measures only go so far and are only available to those who can afford them (whether the cost be in $ or in compliance to "ladyship"). When we live in a culture that perpetuates it all the time there is no way sure way to protect against being harmed by the violence of predatory and patriarchal exploitation.

I have more one smallish cut of beef about all of this. Why did this letter need to be open and public? In some sense Sinead's making public her disapproval for Miley's work creates a perfect beacon of faux-rightouesness for everyone who thinks that sex and sexual express is something women need to be protected from.

I find Miley's responses to Sinead deeply disrespectful and abusive in ways that are pretty fucking obvious. Just because I have some beefs with Sinead's letter and approach doesn't mean I think she need to be bullied by Cyrus and her supporters.

I know scarce little about Sinead's mental/emotional health and relationship to the music industry. I chose not to focus on those things in this piece. Many are defending Sinead's misstep on the bases of the trauma the music industry inflicted on her. And yes. Trauma is valid. Totally and completely. But victims and survivors of trauma don't get a special pass to shame/boss/save others who have had or are having similar experiences.

I understand that seeing people make choices that might hurt them in the long run is painful. And yes, speaking up in those instances can be life saving, but interventions like this can and must be done with complete respect for the agency of the people we are trying to reach. We can't think we can save them, or that we can know their experience better than they do.

The dismantling of the patriarchy will not be accomplished by ignoring the agency of others, using sex work as a specter of shame and/or calling for protection for some women. Real prevention and harm reduction starts when we require everyone to confront and take responsibility for the violence and oppression they either directly participate in or are complicity endorsing in themselves and their communities by not speaking up. None of us are exclusively victims or perpetrators. We are all uniquely harmed by and responsible for the oppressions that exist in this world.

Sinead fails to communicate this in her letter. Her derogatory use of "prostitution", her calling for Miley's protection, highlight the uncomfortable cultural tension between the confining roles that patriarchy allows women to inhabit: the whore or the (protected) virgin/lady.

Due to Sinead's unfortunate missteps her open letter ends up echoing the privileged anti-sex work activists blindly shouting "save yourself" at sex workers. It's well meant but deeply condescending, and full of impractical solutions to the symptoms of our larger condition of patriarchal and capitalist oppression.



Postscript and preview of future post: 

I've heard the cries of "slut shaming" about Sinead's letter and intend to address "slut shaming" in an upcoming post. Please stay tuned.

How to avoid the manic pixie dream girl: A simple guide with 6 counterexamples

First lets let's definine our terms:

Manic pixie dream girl has been identified by Nathan Rabin as "that bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." For more information on the MDPG visit the wiki. See also.

When I use the words crazy or manic I mean folks that are not neurotypical. I view neither of these terms as inherently negative and support neurodiversity. I personally want to extend the definition of the MPDG trope to include not just women/girls because I believe that any crazy/manic supporting character runs the risk of having their manic/crazy qualities exist only to serve the protagonist (if you have nonMPDG examples please send the to me!). This practice exploits and misrepresents the experiences of crazy, manic and non-neurotypical individuals. The use of the manic pixie dream girl is simply the most flagrant example I've seen of this exploitation.

But now onto the how-to:

When constructing quirky/inspirational supporting character, take a moment to focus on this character's motivations. Does this supporting character serve any other function than to be inspiring or create motivation for the protagonist? This can be measured easily by asking yourself if the potential MPDG is dynamic enough for their own story. Could you could write them their own novel/film/comic? If not you might be at risk of writing a manic pixie dream girl/person. 

If you, as the creator, don't believe your supporting character is compelling and brimming with potential story, you can't expect your audience to believe in them either. And they won't. My rule of thumb: for every compelling supporting character there should be pages of (written or unwritten) back story.

And lastly, just as it would be ridiculous to assign a character brutish qualities because they appear strong, it is equally ridiculous to assume that a character is incapable or easier to understand simply because they are crazy. If someone is not neurotypical it is PART of who they are, but certainly not all they are. Remember this when writing crazy/manic characters.

For your convenience I have selected the following pop culture examples of (mostly supporting) characters that are quirky, strange, manic, or crazy or othered in some way yet still very dynamic and compelling!


1.

Hermione Granger form Harry Potter series (book & film)
Quirk: Intelligence

For all of those awful movies in the where the mousy-but-smart girl who becomes magically hot, but then has the added bonus quirk of intelligence to support the male hero Hermione is the cure. She is sassy as fuck, has her own projects that she deeply cares about; academic and social justice projects that don't directly concern her protagonist friend. She is also tough enough make deep sacrifices (she magically erases herself from her parent's memories for their safety). Her intelligence, fortitude, & creativity are definitely doing more than serving a male protagonist.


2.



Joon from Benny and Joon (film)
Quirk: PTSD
Both Joon and her romantic interest Sam are not nuero-typical (Joon very apparently so and Sam in a social sense). These characters are on a more equal footing not just because they are both othered by culture (they do share solidarity in this) but also because they have a separate and interesting story about moving through the world as a crazy/freaky/weird person. Also note that their love story is miles more comfortable and interesting than the romance between the two "sane" characters Benny & Ruth.



3.





Johnny from Dirty Dancing (film)
Quirk: From the wrong side of the tracks
Johnny and the relationship he shares with Baby in this film are what lead her to her cathartic breaking with the politics of her family and her upper class world. Now I know it bucks the tradition of manic pixie dream "girl", but hear me out. It's clear in the end of the film that Baby and Johnny, though very important forces of change in each others lives are probably never going to see each other again, but what is also clear is that they are both headed on to interesting and wildly different futures.

4.

Leonard Cohen's Suzanne (music)
Quirk: "She's half-crazy"
I loved this song as a teenager even before I started to make cultural criticisms my business. But as a poet and sharpening feminist I began to find more reasons to love it. This song is not a love song, at least not a lustful or overly romantic narrative. This woman is strange and seemingly magical, but she is very clearly also very human (with her salvation army clothes) and on equal ground with the song's "you" and in some ways ahead of the curve.

5.

Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (film)
Quirk: Spontaneous; collect potatoes; all of the hair colors
Often misidentified as a MDPG, in this simple speech Clementine reframes the entire film (and takes the trope of MPDG to task) by encouraging you to be skeptical of Joel's motivations surrounding Clementine. She's not afraid to tell you "I'm just a fucked-up girl looking for my own piece of mind".

6.
Detroit Annie

Her words pour out as if her throat were a broken artery.

and her mind were cut-glass, carelessly handled.
You imagine her in a huge velvet hat with great
dangling black feathers,
but she shaves her head instead
and goes for three-day midnight walks.
Sometimes she goes down to the dock and dances
off the end of it, simply to prove her belief
that people who cannot walk on water
are phonies, or dead.
When she is cruel, she is very, very
cool and when she is kind she is lavish.
Fisherman think perhaps she’s a fish, but they’re all
fools. She figured out that the only way
to keep from being frozen was to
stay in motion, and long ago converted
most of her flesh into liquid. Now when she
smells danger, she spills herself all over,
like gasoline, and lights it.
She leaves the taste of salt and iron
under your tongue, but you dont mind
The common woman is as common
as the reddest wine.

Annie from Detroit Annie, hitchhiking by Judy Grahn (poem)
Quirk: Tries to walk on water
I selected this poem for it's description of the way Annie "converted her flesh into liquid. Now when she smells danger, she spills herself all over like gasoline, and lights it" From these lines I infer is some level of manic behavior, mostly because this it pretty accurately describes how I feel when I have a manic episode. But notice she is still human? Still a "common woman".

Endnote:
I'd suggest reading the all of Judy Grahn's popular Common Woman series. It and Detroit Annie in particular inspired this post. Judy Grahn was right in calling for the representation of woman as common in that all humans (women included) share in common that they have their own motivations. In this spirit I demand that quirky, manic (female) supporting characters be more than inspirational, that they be shown as more than just concepts, that crazy/weird women aren't crazy/weird for you. We're doing it for ourselves. Because it's who we are.

The manic pixie dream girl is just one more message to women & those who are crazy/weird/freaky/non-neurotypical, telling us that our insanity doesn't belong to us -- that it's the only thing that makes us interesting. Fuck that trendy bullshit. Every crazy person I know has a story and a life that's more than just their crazy. We're not your inspiration.



PS I'd LOVE to expand this list. Suggestions of manic/quirky supporting character are VERY welcome!