Saturday, April 30, 2011

Labels On Tumblr!

You expend 1 Creativity point and increase your blog's complexity level to 2.

Your blog now has Tumblr Affiliate!

For weird little short things, image posts, and direct critique/response of things that I find on Tumblr, I now have a page there: Labels On Tables. (AKA thecoolnamesweretaken.tumblr.com) Find moar of my commentary and ponderance there.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Your Serving Of Awesomesauce

So, I'm not writing stuff right now. Partly because someone told me I've been incoherent lately (which means that before I move on, I need to go back and polish some stuff), and mainly because I've been working my butt off and don't have time for everything.

So if you're here, and you're white, you need to go to this site:

http://www.counter-racismnow.com/

This site is the closest thing I've ever found to the elusive "magical fountain of knowledge about racism" (at least as it affects black folks.) Each post seems to be part of a coherent analysis of the role that racism plays in the United States' society, and it's fucking brilliant. So read it and learn something.

(Warning: The blog is a VERY straight and cisgender space. The Web site with which the blog is associated, http://www.counter-racism.com is likewise dominated, and particularly in the forum there is a LOT of heteronormative and downright homo/transphobic thinking. I ain't saying these guys are perfect, just awesome.)

Saturday, April 16, 2011

A Breakdown Of "I Kissed A Vampire"

"I Kissed A Vampire" is a web musical that spans three episodes. Directed by Chris Sean Nolan (not to be confused with Christopher Nolan), and starring a whole slew of white people, it tells the story of confused teenage vampire Dylan, his girlfriend Sarah, and Dylan's self-appointed mentor vampire Trey.

Dylan is played by Lucas Grabeel. Those who have seen the High School Musical films know him as Ryan Evans, Sharpay's fey underdog of a brother. Sarah is the adorable Adrian Slade, who previously had not done any film acting but has a history in theatre. And Trey is filmed by Andrew Seeley, the singer who filled in for n00b Zac Efron in the first HSM film and a decent actor in his own right.

The first episode opens with Dylan, angsting about his newly-acquired vampirehood. Not only is he having problems with fangs and blood cravings, but he's really worried about his best friend and proto-girlfriend, Sarah. Any time they get too close, he gets a sudden urge to go for her neck and the whole thing gets awkward. It's a simple and obvious allegory for teenage sexuality and the Awkward Boner, but it works well enough. He performs the song "Outta My Head," expressing his regret that he can't get close to Sarah but also can't stand to be apart from her, with plenty of imagery that seems to be borne of his vision of himself as an intrinsically corrupted and dangerous thing.

After that, the story switches to Sarah, who expresses herself with "Forbidden Planet." The song, with an interesting mixture of aggressive and submissive imagery, conveys the fact that Sarah is very much in love with Dylan and really, really wants to just get it on with him already, but his avoidant behavior is leaving her confused and frustrated. Finally, she decides to visit him and find out what's going on already.

The end of the episode introduces Trey, and the beginning of the second episode fleshes him out. Trey's basically the opposite of Dylan. He's confident, to the point where he is aggressively sexual, and tries to encourage Dylan to be the same way. The song "Love's In Vein" is pretty much Trey's ode to casual sex, implying that a monogamous relationship is a waste of time and that what Dylan should really be doing is sowing some wild oats, with a backup dance crew of seductive lady vampires to drive the point home. Dylan's not into it, which frustrates Trey.

Who should show up at this point but Sarah? She's here and she wants to know why Dylan's being so weird. Trey, sensing opportunity, decides to use Sarah to try to manipulate Dylan into vamping out, and uses his vampire powers of hypnosis to convince her to come to a party. Dylan is against it, but Sarah, under Trey's influence, advises Dylan to "live a little" and they leave.

The third episode opens at the party, where Trey's backup dancers are revealed to be his harem of hypersexual vampires. Trey gives Sarah a drugged drink, then encourages Dylan to take advantage of her altered mental state and kiss her. Dylan refuses at first, but when Trey pushes him he goes for it. His fangs come out again, though, and he stops himself. Trey gets frustrated and decides to seduce (read: rape) Sarah himself. Through the song "Just A Little Peck," Trey and Sarah dance and flirt with one another while Dylan, who is being held back by the dancers, continues to angst about the possibility of hurting Sarah.

The scenario climaxes when Trey starts to bite Sarah, which gives Dylan the courage to break free of the dancers and fight him off. This apparently causes Sarah to snap out of the effect of her drink, and she asks Dylan what's going on. Avoiding the topic of vampires, he instead goes on the "confession of love" tack, and Sarah kisses him. The last song, "Happily Afterlife," consists of Sarah and Dylan vowing to be together forever, no matter what weird stuff might happen.

It's pretty silly, but it's also very interesting, which I will now get into.

First of all, you have Dylan. Realistically speaking, there's nothing groundbreaking about this character; he's the typical virgin whose horny best friend is encouraging him to do something he's not ready for (straight out of an 80's movie.)

However, his character is important, both as a role model to teenage boys and an example of a genuinely good (i.e., safe and dateable) vampire boyfriend for young women.

Dylan's character bears a great deal of similarity to the better-known Edward Cullen, whose refusal to have sex with his girlfriend is only matched by his determination to control everything she does for her own "safety" - manipulative at best, abusive at worst. Dylan, on the other hand, is against manipulating Sarah in any way. Certainly he does not find it necessary in the end to terminate their relationship just because there is a chance that she might be hurt.

The downside to this is that he doesn't give her a chance to terminate the relationship based on that, though. He avoids letting Sarah know that he is a vampire repeatedly. This is largely because he's convinced she won't believe him, but it has the unintended side effect of removing her ability to make an informed decision and is NOT COOL, GUISE.

Sarah is, without a doubt, my favorite character. When she's first introduced, she is the epitome of what white teenage femininity is "supposed" to be - wholesome, blonde, yadda. But within a short time of her introduction she is revealed to be quite sexual, and unapologetically so. Yet she is never portrayed as a "slut" - in fact, the clothes she wears in sexually-aggressive mode are almost as wholesome and modest as her regular outfit. She's a good girl who also has needs and isn't afraid to vocalize them.

Again I feel the need to compare the story to Twilight, as its mortal, vampire-loving heroine is also wholesome-seeming but with a not insignificant sex drive. However, there's a huge difference between the stories. Whereas Bella's sexuality is portrayed as rashness, and Edward as a sort of hero who saves her from herself by refusing to have sex with her, Sarah's needs are shown to be valid and worthy of fulfillment.

Trey is the character whom I feel is most likely to be misinterpreted. This is because of certain traits that, to be honest, cause me some pretty mixed feelings. Basically, one way to look at Trey is as an incredibly powerful, confident, and dominant vampire - in other words, sex in a can. He's hot, no doubt about it. But he is also manipulative, misogynistic, self-centered, and an attempted rapist, and this is in no way a good thing.

My main problem with that is that I don't feel the story comes down hard enough on him for what he did. Dylan does stop him, but really he suffers no consequence for manipulating Sarah - in fact, while the main lovebirds are confessing their love for one another in the final number, Trey is in the background having fun with his harem. The message appears to be that Sarah isn't a toy, but all those nameless girls in the background are. The fact that the vampire women have a significantly "sluttier" appearance than Sarah - big, curled hair, sensuous movements, more pronounced makeup, and more revealing clothes - gives the unfortunate impression that any girl who acts in such a manner is fair game for an asshole's collection of sexually available women. Not awesome.

There's also the fact that the "good" characters have blonde hair - often used as a shorthand for purity - and the "bad" characters have brown hair, implying some kind of corruptitude. Yeah, right.

I have to say that I really have a soft spot for this musical. There are some unfortunate implications (a nice way of saying "harmful messages") in the story, but it's also got some good things in it, and the soundtrack kicks ass. So does Drew Seeley in that funerary suit, yes indeed.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Why can't we all live in harmony?

When people say that, what they usually mean is "Why can't we all live in melody?"

Let me explain.

People who desire "harmony" have a particular goal in mind. Usually they expect everyone to be like-minded, with only a few superficial differences that are easy for them to feel comfortable with. The mindset in question will be set by the majority or by whoever is leading the civilization. The enemies of this so-called harmony are dissenters, people who violate the status quo, who don't accept their place in life, essentially.

In music, however, harmony is not the tune that everyone sings. In fact, it is usually only sung by one or two people, and it may not even sound anything like the melody. It is the difference of the harmony that makes it essential. Get a bunch of people around to sing the melody, and it will sound nice, but add in a handful of harmonizers and the song can be breathtaking.

Following that definition, "living in harmony" would not mean always following the same rules and getting along just fine. It means dissent. It means hearing voices that go against the grain, minority views that don't really sound anything like the mainstream opinion but by their inclusion they make thought and life and humanity into something bigger than it used to be. It means embracing the contrasts between human beings instead of trying to smooth them out into a collective. It means less of a melting pot and more of a tossed salad, but tossed salads are a thing of beauty, with green and red and white and orange and purple splayed out here and there, and no bite tastes exactly the same as the one before it.

That's a kind of harmony that I would love to live in.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Mississippi Goddam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBiAtwQZnHs

An old video, but one that I expect most young white people haven't seen. The song was written and performed by Nana Simone in the 60's as a protest against recent acts of racist terrorism. More on Wikipedia. The lyrics allude to numerous acts of daily racism, most of which are still committed to this day. It brings a certain depth of poignancy to the struggles of black people that can never be attained through white-produced media.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Worth Watching: Did God Have A Wife?

I just finished watching this documentary. Part of the BBC's "Bible Secrets" series, "Did God Have A Wife?" shows compelling evidence that early Judaism was polytheistic, an offshoot of Canaanite religion, and featured a powerful and holy goddess figure who was a counterpart to good ol' Yahweh.

The parts are on YouTube and can be watched via Unreasonable Faith.

The whole show is really interesting, but the part that I found the most compelling (though horrifying) concerned Asherah, El's wife and the goddess of life and fertility. According to Dr. Stavrakopoulou, some of the first scholars to get their hands on Asherah took one look at her exaggerated breasts and vulva and decided that she was, essentially, a porno goddess and that her followers had all succumbed to their love of teh secks.

Really, guys.

I can only try to communicate my disgust at this reaction. For me, Asherah is a beautiful, wonderful figure. She represents the fact that once upon a time in the history of the religion that shapes our world, a woman's organs were considered holy, not obscene. They were a source of power, not shame. They were more than the value assigned to them by our modern society, who has the presumption to look back on them and decide that she must have been a horrible character not from evidence but because of their own filthy misogyny.

I guess what I'm trying to say is Asherah is every woman. As Dr. Stavrakopoulou expresses at the end of the video, her erasure from the pantheon and subsequent (though cleverly concealed) demonization represents nothing less than the fall of womanhood from its rightful place as an equal way of being to a state of less-than-human. It enables laws that make a woman responsible for her own rape if she does not cry for help, laws that turn that woman into a piece of property who must be bought from her father, the continued absence of laws to accommodate a painful and awkward time in the life of most working women, the treatment of women as "bitches" or "chicks" who exist to lavish love and attention upon men, and the sickening double standard that forbids women and only women from baring their nipples in public.

While men make representations of themselves for various uses, erect large phalluses in each other's honor (see the Washington Monument), and get together to brag about how many holes they've stuck their penises into, women are told to cover up the same parts of their body that were once venerated as wonderful and necessary to humanity or else they'll get into trouble.

It's sick. Just sick. To repurpose a quote, my vagina is offended.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Deconstructing the Privileged Brain 1: Optimism

You remember way back when I was going to do that? Well, I'm still gonna do it. I'm not going to waste my time telling you why you should try to deconstruct your privileged brain; if you really care about listening to people who are different from yourself then you already know why and if not, you can come back when you're ready.

So, without further ado, this is Deconstructing the Privileged Brain, Part 1: Optimism.

I remember pretty clearly that, when I started reading about racism, I didn't want to believe what I was reading. There was a pretty simple reason for that: I liked to believe the best in people. Especially people who are like me (i.e. white). I wasn't deluded, of course - I knew that people were racist and nasty. But the idea that every single white person was racist - and, even if they were trying not to, were probably actively committing racism at any given time? That was horrible.

I especially didn't want to believe that I could be contributing to this problem in a serious way. After all, I wasn't a bad person - at least, I didn't think I was. I didn't hate people of color. I couldn't admit I was racist! That would mean I was a meanie, and I so wasn't.

These thoughts are all rooted in the kyriarchy, of course. White American culture has a fixation with being "a good person;" admitting that you, personally, could be harming another person is generally unthinkable unless you are an alcoholic or an abuser. This is telling of the kind of black-and-white morals our society is usually obsessed with. You're either a good guy or a bad guy, you're a racist or a liberal, you either beat your kids until they bruise or you're not an abusive parent. You're an optimist or a pessimist. Being a Good Person is the ultimate goal, in fact. If you're not nice enough to be a Good Person, then you should at least Have Your Heart In The Right Place. If you don't, you're a Jerk or a Douchebag, and deserve to be shunned from all of civilization.

To compound the problem, morality in our culture was mainly invented - and is still mostly maintained - by high-ranking, white, rich, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied Christian men. As a result, the things that are considered good and moral in our society are mainly those that are relevant to this group of people. Our various concessions - such as "be civil to the underprivileged" - have come only because those who are affected by them have demanded them, and only when the issue became so prominent that it crippled the ability of privileged persons to go on thinking of themselves as decent people.

It is no accident that one of the primary commandments of Christianity, and one of our great moral tenets in this country, is to "suck up and take it." Don't call out racism, homophobia, ableism. If you do, then you're a dissident. A fight-starter. A whiner. Or worse - "oversensitive." The most valued person in our culture - aside from a heroic white man who fixes all of the problems that other white men agree are actual problems - is a perpetual martyr. One who doesn't shun the Douchebag, even though xe deserves it. One who works a grueling job for ten hours a day so she can afford to feed her children (at least as long as she's white). One who always has a smile for everyone xe meets, no matter how bad of a day xe has. Someone who has struggles - heaps and heaps of struggles, even - but recognizes that other people are More Important and dedicates xir life to making theirs better.

Most importantly, xe must believe that everyone else is a Good Person and that the entire country is a wonderful, opportunity-loaded place suitable for all who live there. Failure to maintain this unrealistic viewpoint, particularly if you actually voice your negative opinions, gets you branded a Cynic, a Pessimist, an all-around Party Pooper.

Unless you're a rich, white, straight man - in which case you are Making a Difference and your complaints are 100% justified and necessary.

It is these societal mores that lead to the privileged mindset as I described it above. Of course, the depth with which we absorb this attitude is directly proportionate to how privileged we are ourselves. For instance, growing up with straight, white, TAB, Christian, English-speaking, locally-born, neurotypical, and some cisgender privilege made me quite receptive. For nearly two decades I believed as I was taught - that everyone had equal opportunities and that affirmative action actually took needed resources away from white people, that gay pride was an unnecessary celebration of deviance, that undocumented immigrants were stubborn criminals who came to the country to leech freebies off of the taxpayers.

Becoming an atheist helped me to become more aware of these inequalities, as I spent a lot of time in atheist circles for the first few months, learning that atheists are the least trusted minority in the United States and that a slew of stereotypes made it difficult for us to obtain and maintain employment and friendly relations with others. But I still wasn't sure about those gays, and I didn't believe in racism, because that fight was over, right? (None of the atheists I read - mostly white - had anything to say about any oppression other than the religious kind.)

Realizing my bisexuality and gender fluidity gave me a stake in gay issues, making me realize that the fight for equality was both ongoing and necessary. But I still didn't know anything about trans people (those are women stuck in men's bodies, right?) and I still didn't believe in racism, because they kept saying that gay was the new black and it was just so catchy.

Realizing that I was transgender shook my world. Suddenly I was able to look at everything from a completely different angle. I began to absorb the depth and complexity of the non-straightcis world. I knew what it felt like to be truly, honestly queer - one of the least known and understood varieties of human beings available. But I still didn't believe that racism was a problem, or ableism, or one of a bajillion other forms of prejudice - because, except for people belonging to my intersections and a few select others, we were all equals, right?

That's how pervasive the mindset of privilege is.

I was fortunate enough to be pointed to the link that would change my life - a reference to Womanist Musings via Tranifesto. I knew what womanist meant - a feminist of color, in a manner of speaking. I knew that the movement had been started because of alleged racism in feminism, and I'd even read some things they'd written, but I hadn't stuck around. The writing of womanists seemed so hostile to white people.

I found that to be true this time, as well. Despite my rejection of a number of societal norms, I had unquestioningly bought into the idea that I was a Good Person, and being confronted with people of color - quite a lot of them, as I moved from Womanist Musings to Stuff White People Do, Racialicious, and other blogs - who dared to insinuate that I must be doing something wrong just because I was white - was completely offensive to my privileged sensibilities. Because if I was this badly racist, then I couldn't be a Good Person, and therefore I must be a Douchebag, and so what these people were saying was obviously that I was worthless as a human being. Right?

Dismantling this idea in your head isn't something that can be done overnight. It's not even something that I can teach you to do. The best thing I can do is offer some pointers:

  • Listen. This can be hard for a variety of reasons. Some people are used to having their opinions heard at all times. Others, like me, are used to being silenced, and have a knee-jerk reaction when ANYONE tells us to "sit down and shut up." This, plus the shock of being confronted with someone daring to say something that flies in the face of everything we've been taught, makes it hard to listen with an open mind. The thing is, if you're reading this now, your mind is already open enough to begin the learning process. Do what you are asked, and read without commentating with knee-jerk responses or what seem at this point to be reasonable rebuttals. If you do, you will learn the truth.
  • Don't throw your responses and rebuttals at the writers - but do write them down. Every time you read about any oppression issue that doesn't seem right to you, write down the reason or at least keep it in mind. Eventually you will come across an explanation that will satisfy your objection, without creating an ugly argument in a place where it doesn't belong.
  • Be patient! Your programmed optimism is a barrier that is working to prevent you from believing that things could really be as bad as they say. Unlearning a privileged mindset is a lifelong endeavor - expect about a year to get the basics down - and you might not understand a given issue the first, second, or third time you read it. Bookmark any subjects that you're having trouble getting your head around, and re-read them at a later date.
  • Cross-reference. I'm ashamed to say that there were a number of issues relating specifically to racism that I didn't understand at all until I encountered a parallel issue relating to sexism or another form of discrimination. Our brains are so locked up with prejudice that sometimes we do have to resort to such techniques. If you're willing to learn, it's worth it.
  • Take a break once in a while. It can be - no, it is - very startling to learn that a world you thought was pretty damned awesome is actually pretty fucked up. Even moreso to learn that you, specifically, are helping to make it that way. When you first start reading about racism, for example, it's easy to imagine that all of the anger coming from the writers is being directed at you specifically, and it becomes very stressful and counterproductive to your education. It's not the responsibility of the people you're learning from to hold your hand through the deprogramming process, so when you feel yourself becoming bitter or defensive, walk away for a while. Write about what you're feeling, talk about it with someone close to you, or lose yourself in something familiar and comfortable, and come back when you're feeling calmer.
  • When you start to take something personally, examine it. A lot of people say "If it's not about you, don't make it about you," but I say, "If you think it's about you, figure out why." If your first instinct is to leave a message saying "I'm not like that!" then ask yourself: are you saying this because you're really afraid they are painting everyone with the same brush (they aren't), or because you're afraid that you're not the exception to the rule? I personally had trouble in this vein for one of two reasons: either I was afraid that I would internalize the behavior being described and actually become worse (which is something that I have to fight), or because I knew I could do the thing in question and wanted to assert that I hadn't to make myself feel better. The job of your brain is to soothe your fear and reinforce your love of society's inherent goodness, which is something you should be putting on the back burner during the learning process.
That's pretty much it for Part 1. With any luck I've managed to say anything that I was hoping to say with any kind of comprehensibility. Thank you, and good night.

You'd NEVER survive in the jungle!

Or the savanna. Or a zombie apocalypse. That, in addition to "But you're eating up all of the foooooooood!" is one of the biggest arguments against fatness. People seem to think that if your body isn't rigged so that you could move to the wilderness right now and survive easily, you're somehow failing at life.

To that I have to ask, "Why?"

I DON'T live in the wilderness. I live in a cushy society where my needs are supplied by people I've never even met. I live in a society with cars that take me farther than I could ever get on foot. Medical treatment far superior than what would otherwise be available. I don't NEED to be ready to hunt a mammoth, because my lifestyle simply doesn't call for it.

A lot of people would see that as a failure. Some see it as me succumbing to an artificial lifestyle that humanity was never meant to endure (remember, I'm an atheist, so in my book humanity was never MEANT to do anything). Alternatively, some would see it as my becoming overadapted, which could be bad if, say, the United States were to suddenly collapse.

And there's a point in that, but the argument is flawed.

See, humans have never been good at living on their own. We're social animals. Even if the entire country comes crumbling down, I'm guessing we'll be more likely to reach out to people around us for support than hole up in our homes with a bunch of canned beans, and for a reason: that's suicide. Strength is in numbers.

And a funny thing about social groups is that they work best when the members specialize.

The kind of people who would criticize my usefulness in a survival scenario are focusing on raw physical capability. If you can't run, fight or hunt, they say, you're useless. Dead weight, even. No one would keep you around; you'd be a burden.

Huh?

What about the people who mend your clothes? What about toolmakers, cooks, babysitters? (Who do you think is going to watch the fit people's kids while they're out hunting, exactly?) What about entertainers? (Storytellers have been an integral part of human society since before the dawn of civilization.) What about gardeners, sentries, scribes? Are you really saying that they all have to be physically fit?

Or are you saying you could do without them? Because I would love to see you try. I'd love to see a small group of physically fit people try to balance hunting, gathering, sewing, cooking, toilet maintenance, fishing, building, toolmaking, and whatever else you have to do, while still having enough time to rest so you can do it all again the next day. Sure, you can do task rotation, but all that means is that no one is going to get good enough at any one job to get as much out of it as you could be. A few fat specialists, to take up some of the easier but time-consuming jobs while the rest of you focus on keeping everyone fed and watered, could make a lot of difference in this situation.

And in case you're worried about us eating up all of the food: remember, people who are physically active eat a lot more than people who are sedentary. Our diets are going to look light compared to yours.

Suckers.