#FEMINISM). by better conversations i mean more productive conversations with people on my side of the political spectrum because obviously

[maddy-ferguson]

society if girls were taught to turn their discomfort outward instead of inward

[a-room-of-my-own]

A while before the latest hoo-ha about Judith Butler, I had just been reading her again. Though she claims her critics have not read her, this simply isn’t the case. I read Gender Trouble when it first came out and it was important at the time . That time was long,long ago. She was just one of the many ‘post-structuralist’ thinkers I was into. I would trip off to see  Luce Irigaray or Derrida whenever they appeared.

I got an interview  with Baudrillard and tried to sell it to The Guardian but they  didn’t know who he was so its fair to say I was fairly immersed in that world of theory.  For a while, I had a part time lecturing job so I had to keep on top of it. Though Butler’s idea of gender as performance was not new , it was interesting.  RuPaul said it so much more clearly in a  quote nicked from  someone else “Honey ,we are born naked, the rest is drag”

What I was looking for again , I guess is not any clarity – her writing is famously and deliberately difficult-  but whether there was ever any sense of the material body. She wrote herself in 2004 “I confess however I am not a very good materialist. Every time I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language” . 

Butler from on high ,cannot really think about the body at all which is why they (Butler’s chosen pronoun) are now the high priestess of a particular kind of trans ideology.  The men who worship Butler are not versed in high theory. The fox botherer had a “brain swoon” at some very ordinary things Butler said. Mr Right Side of history nodded along in an interview. Clearly neither of these men are versed in any of this philosophy and would be better off sticking to tax law and the decline of the Labour Party. Butler is simply a totem for them.

Butler said in the Guardian interview for instance  “Gender is an assignment that does not just happen once: it is ongoing. We are assigned a sex at birth and then a slew of expectations follow which continue to “assign” gender to us.”

So yeah? That’s a fairly basic view of the social construction of gender though I take issue with the assigned at birth thing ,which I will come back to and why I started reading her again in the first place.

This phrase “Assigned sex at birth” is now common parlance but simply does not make sense  to me. I am living with someone who is pregnant. I have given birth three times and been a birthing  partner. I know where babies come from. There is a deep disconnect here between language and reality which no amount of academic jargon can obliterate. 

Babies  come from bodies. Not any bodies but bodies that have a uterus. They grew inside a woman’s body until they  get pushed out or dragged out into the world. 

The facts of life that we are now to be liberated from in the form of denial. Only one sex can have babies but we must now somehow not say that. The pregnant “people” of Texas will now be forced into giving birth to children they don’t want because they are simply “host bodies”. The language of patriarchal supremacy and that of some of the trans ideologues is remarkably close, as is their biological ignorance.

There is no foetal heatbeat at six weeks for instance. When a baby is born , doctors and midwives do not randomly assign a sex, they observe it and they do it though genitalia. 

There is a question over a tiny percentage of babies ,less that one percent with DSDs but even then they are sexed with doctors having  difficult conversations with parents about what may happen later.

Somehow, though when I read the way in which this is now all discussed it is clear to me that the people talking have never been pregnant, never had a foetal scan, never been near a birth , never miscarried, do not understand that even with a still birth babies are still sexed and often named. 

If you want to know the sex of your baby you can pay privately and know at 7 weeks ((*49-56 days from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual cycle). A 12 week scan will show it. That is why so many female foetuses are aborted . I have reported on this. 

Talking to paediatricians about this is interesting because they do indeed have to think through these things that we are being told are not real eg. that sex is just a by-product of colonialism for instance.  Sometimes pre-conception , geneticists will be looking at chromosomes because certain diseases are more likely in men or women. Males have a higher risk of haemophilia for instance.  

One doctor told me “When babies are premature, the survival advantage of females over males is well known throughout neonatology. This is sometimes something we talk about with parents when there is threatened premature labour around 23 weeks' gestation and options to discuss about resuscitation and medical interventions. In fertility treatment (or counselling around fertility in the context of medical treatments) it is pretty inherent to know whether we need to plan around sperm, or ova + pregnancy.”

She also said that if she involved in a birth that “assigning” isn’t the word she world use. “Observed genitals a highly reliable observation, just like measuring weight or head circumference which is also done at this time. “ Another doctor said that anyone involved with a trans man giving birth  would be doing the best for the patient in front  of them. 

Sex then is biological fact. A female baby will have all the eggs she will ever have when she is first born which is kind of amazing. It is not bio-essentialist to say that our sexed bodies are different nor is it transphobic to recognise it.

Except of course in my old newspaper ,The Guardian who are now so hamstrung by their  own ideology they have got their knickers in such a twist they can barely walk.  They completely misreported the WiSpa incident , basically ignored the Sonia  Appleby  judgement at the Tavistock. Appleby was a whistle blower ,a respected professional concerned with safe guarding. She won her case. The cherry on the cake this week was an interview with Butler, themselves (?) in which they went on about Terfs being fascists and needing to extend the category of women.

Does anyone EVER stop to think that most gender critical women are of the left, supporters of gay rights, often lesbian and that this is not America? We are not in bed with the far right. This is bollocks. Just another way to dismiss us.  

As we watch Afghanistan and Texas ,to say Butler’s words were tone deaf is to say the least. But they didn’t even have the guts to keep the most offensive stuff in the piece and overnight edited it out without really explaining why : the bits where Butler described gender critical people as fascist. Perhaps because the person their “reporters” had  defended against  transphobia at WiSpa turned out to be a known sex offender,  perhaps because someone pointed out that Butler was throwing around the word fascist rather like Rik Mayall used to do in the Young Ones. 

All of this is rather desperate and readers deserve better. When I left that newspaper I said that I thought and expected editors to stand up for their writers in public. Instead they go into some catatonic paralysis. I may have not liked this interview but it should never have been cut. Stand by what you publish or your credibility is shot.

But this is about more than Judith Butler and their refusal to support women . Butler is not really any kind of feminist at all. What this is about is the large edifice of trans ideology  crumbling when any real analysis is applied. Yes, I have read Shon Faye’s book and there are some interesting points in it and I totally agree that the lives of trans people should be easier and health care better . I have never said anything but that.

What Faye does in the book is say that there can be no trans liberation under capitalism so there will be a bit of a wait I suspect. 

Yet surely it is the other way round and what we are seeing is that trans ideology (not trans people – I am making a distinction here ) represent the apex of capitalism .

For it means that the individual decides their own gendered essence and then spends a fortune on surgery and a lifetime on medication to achieve the appearance of it. Of course lots of people spend a lifetime  on medication but not out of choice.  Marx understood very well that the abolition of our system of production would free up women.

Now it is all about freeing up men. Who say they are women. Quelle surprise.  

 Nussbaum’s famous take down of Butler is premised exactly on the sense of individual versus collective struggle “ The great tragedy in the new feminist theory in America is the loss of a sense of public commitment. In this sense, Butler’s self-involved feminism is extremely American, and it is not surprising that it has caught on here, where successful middle-class people prefer to focus on cultivating the self rather than thinking in a way that helps the material condition of others. “

Such thinking now dominates academia. There is simply an unquestioning  rehearsal of something most of know not to be true thus Amia Srinivasan writes in The Right to Sex  “At birth, bodies are sorted as ‘male’ or ‘female’, though many bodies must be mutilated to fit one category or the other, and many bodies will later protest against the decision that was made. This originary division determines what social purpose a body will be assigned.”

What does ‘sorted’ mean here? A tiny number of intersex babies are born. A tiny number of people are trans and decide to change their bodies. The feminist demand to challenge gender norms without mutilating any one’s body no longer matters. What matters now is this retrograde return  to some gendered soul. This is not something any decent Marxist would have any truck with . Of course one may change over a lifetime and of course gender is never ‘settled.’ We are complex people who inhabit bodies that often don’t work or appear as we want them to.

But not only is there a denial of basic Marxism going on here , what becomes ever more apparent is  that there is a denial of motherhood. Butler said “Yet gender is also what is made along the way – we can take over the power of assignment, make it into self-assignment, which can include sex reassignment at a legal and medical level.”

Self-assignment is key . One may birth oneself. No longer of woman born but self -made. This is a theoretical leap but it also one that has profound implications for women as a sex class. We are really then, just the  host bodies to a new breed of people who self-assign.

Maybe that is the future although look around the word and there isn’t a lot of self-assignment going on. There are simply women shot and beaten in the street, choked to death or having  their rights taken  away. There is no identifying out of this , there is no fluidity here . This is not discourse. It is brutality and do we not have some responsibility to other women to confront male violence ?

Instead the hatred is aided and abetted by so called philosophers describing  other women as Terfs. It is utterly depressing.

The sexed body. The pregnant body. The dying body. The body is in trouble when we can’t talk about it . I thought of Margaret Mary O’Hara’s  beautiful and  strange lyrics and what they might mean. I await my child’s return from the hospital as hers is a difficult pregnancy and thank god they are on the case. The sex of the child she carries does not matter to me at all .

It simply exists. Not in language but within a body. 

Why is that so difficult to acknowledge? 

[atozfic]

Love when people reveal themselves as being so obviously online and insulated in leftist/progressive circles that they seem to forget that the rest of the world is not nearly as accepting or supportive of not conforming of gender roles as these spaces are. Like when did you say the reason anyone likes femsub or the reason it's popular at all is because they're young or don't know anything about sex? To me it's pretty clear you were talking about it as a larger trend and why it's so much popular than everything else overall. And to be completely frank, what is the reason femsub is so much popular than anything else OVERALL (not why any individual person likes it or it has any kind of appeal), if not gender roles? Are women just naturally more submissive than men (not saying you think this)? Because I have seen people say this, yes even so-called "feminist" men and women, that my preferences are unnatural because men evolved to be sexually dominant and women evolved to be sexually submissive, and that I'll never be in a happy or satisfying relationship unless I make myself more submissive and change my preferences because men just naturally don't like dominant women. I'm pretty sure you would not like if I took those hurtful and negative experiences and said any woman is submissive is that way is because they're misogynists who just think it's all women's nature to be submissive. And I'm pretty sure of this cause of the way that you freaked out when you even THOUGHT somebody might be implying that when they weren't. So why the fuck is it okay for you to say dom women are the way that we are because we think we're "enlightened" or more strong or better than everyone else and only like what we like because we want to be ~not like other girls~ for attention because of your negative experiences? And I like how they only talk about submissive or vanilla women getting shamed, so true bestie, dom type women, sexually or otherwise, never get shamed for their preferences. Nope, never ever. It's not like people always joke about women "wearing the pants" in the relationship and how it means she doesn't respect her partner. It's not like assertive or aggressive women are called a "bitch" but when men act that way it's sexy. It's not like religion teaches women they have to submit to men or no man will ever love them or they'll never be happy. It's not like people say that women that want to be dominant are "acting like men" or "want to be men" and therefore are unattractive, as if dominance is inherently masculine thing. It's not like a lot of men genuinely believe that all/most women want to be dominated in bed and so they don't even have to ask, they just do things to you and try to dominate you without your permission or consent or without ever having talked about that kind of thing before. Nope, we must have it sooo easy because we've got grrrrllll powerrr on our side, all women love us cause they think we're such cool independent and empowered women, and all men love us cause they think we're just so cool and not like the other girls. Like honestly, I don't assume to know what they experience of submissive women is like or that they must have it so easy because they're preferences are in line with gender roles, because I'm not one and i know they don't always have it easy because I've heard of women in the irl bdsm community being treated badly by shitty men who think it's okay to abuse them or do whatever they want to them because they're sub identified (or sometimes just because they're women). So why is it okay for you to assume what are experience is like?

I'm not involved in any real life bdsm community because corona and I'm anti-social bitch but I do like to lurk on online communities for fun (something I should probably stop doing cause it's not good for my mento health luv lmao). This whole thing reminds me of these weird ass screeds I sometimes come across by straight male doms on reddit where they go on and on trying to reconcile their desires with feminist politics either because a) they're genuinely a misogynistic piece of shit and people call them out on it or b) they're genuinely progressive/humanist men who have some difficulty reconciling their desire to be dominant with feminism for whatever reason. And so they do this weird thing where they project these worries and insecurities outwards, and manufacture a situation where anyone who criticises gender roles at all is against them personally, and it would be so much easier if they were just a female dom instead, everyone would apparently have no problem at all with them then, cause grrrrllll powerrr.

I don't like to engage in armchair psychology but the follow-up ask from that anon made it pretty clear to me that they have some insecurities around reconciling their preference for submission with feminism because of some negative and hurtful experiences, and so they deal with it by projecting it onto anyone that suggests that gender roles might be why SOME people gravitate more towards it and why it's so much more popular than everything else. I'm sorry that those people said those things to you anon, they're wrong, but a) most of those people tend to be against all bdsm in general, not just femsub and b) you need to work out those insecurities by yourself. You can't lash out at anyone who tries to talk about the relationship between societal norms and preferences at all, it's not helpful or productive.

Also how do they know those people unfollowed you for that reason? Is that an assumption or a verifiable fact? I'm not necessarily saying they didn't either, I'm not a mind reader, but like, some people are just sexist and think women are naturally submissive, sexually or otherwise. I've met them before.

to quote my therapist: that was alot to unpack.

i'm gonna give a longer reply under the cut but i just want to state here i'm not posting this ask to offend or hurt, or even "one-up", the original anon who sent that ask regarding sub!females. i have no issue with them and, again, think they're in every right to send their original ask. i'm posting it because i do think this anon made some very interesting points and brought up alot of worthy of being discussed topics.

let me also put a disclaimer here that i am not a genius nor someone very well-versed in gender politics, i'm simply a twat on the internet with a negative mindset.

"Love when people reveal themselves as being so obviously online and insulated in leftist/progressive circles that they seem to forget that the rest of the world is not nearly as accepting or supportive of not conforming of gender roles as these spaces are."

this. omfg, t h i s. i see this so much, especially in my younger cousins/relatives who are just now beginning to develop their own political opinions. let's take the conversation away from dom/sub for one second and just focus on gender in society. one of the clearest examples of gender affecting the way someone is treated/viewed is something i've experienced first-hand: i was misdiagnosed four times before i was correctly given my diagnosis for ASD, because most of the studies regarding it center around boys and, therefore, most women go undiagnosed. in fact, for years it was believed only men could have it which is why there has been such a surgence in the past few years of adult women being diagnosed with autism. i remember hitting high school, experiencing academic burn-out (thanks to everything moving too fast + my classmates catching up to me intellectually) and having my teachers treat me like i was an imbecile, or i was lazy, rather than just someone with neurodivergence. (this isn't me implying tjat men with ASD have it easy or that society accepts them anymore than women, it's only easier for them to get diagnosed.)

"it's not like people always joke about women wearing the pants."

this applies to both the shaming of dom women and sub men. the amount of men who get treated like they're "losing their manhood" for letting a women(or anyone else) dom them is ridiculous.

honestly, I think at the end of the day (and to close up this whole issue-that's-not-really-an-issue), we're unfortunately always going to live in a world where people have opinions against either side of the dom/sub spectrum, or the whole bdsm community in general. the best thing we can do is try lessen the internal conflict, especially between dom and sub women. we gotta stop treating each other like the enemy when all we really are is people with a differing preference. at the end of the day, what someone chooses to do in their bedroom is no one else's business (unless it harms anyone) and we need to take away the importance we seem to put on it. we're on a floating rock in space, who cares if becky likes to peg her boyfriend on a sunday morning or if stacy likes to be tied up on a thursday evening?

also, anon, i like the way you worded this whole ask. despite it being long, it was easy to read and you made some great points. sorry my reply isn't more exciting, i just in general agree with most of what you've said.

[blogbyliv]

Personal Reflection

Liv Gardner 

Women’s Writing Worldwide

Prof. Richard

30 July 2021

Personal Reflection

Growing up as a young woman in a conservative town where feminism is seen as an outlier, devil-made, radical set of ideals, my understanding of the term has always been mixed. From birth to age 14, the concept was somewhat foreign. What little I knew about it did not bear a positive connotation and it seemed to always loom in the background, an uncomfortable topic, like race or sex, that no one seemed to want to discuss. As I moved into a different high school, one away from my hometown, one advanced and labeled as a college preparatory school, things changed. I was exposed to new teachings, new ideas, new people, and the connotation and anonymity of the word in my life changed. As we fast-forward to today, I look at things like this course, one that my pre-teen self could have never imagined would exist or let alone would be one that I was taking, and I admire the impact it has made on my overall body of knowledge. While the world around me has not changed, the community still bearing the same traditional and sexist sentiments as always, it seems as if I have, undoubtedly for the better. 

As I searched for inspiration for such a project, I tried to look back through the TedTalks we often annotated this summer. Many struck me again with the veracity of their messages, but there was one in particular that moved me just as it had the first time: a young woman who was speaking about her Indian heritage and culture. I listened as she talked about the traditions that involved the garments and accessories of the women. She explained how Indian women took pride in their beautiful bangles and colorful saris, but how this would so quickly change once their husbands passed. Their saris would only be allowed to be white and their bangles would be broken. Their lives were seen as irreparable once without a man. This struck me then, just as it did again recently. The clothing, shoes, and accessories that women wear can often say a lot about their culture, how their culture views them, and what they value. At the same time, there can also be heavy misconceptions about these garments that can mark a group of women indefinitely. In my commonplace project, I wanted to explore all of these things. There are countless cultures across the world that are often overlooked, or, conversely, noticed, quickly misunderstood, and then passed by. Coming from a household where my mother owned her own boutique, I knew this was a topic I wanted to explore. Through my blog, I worked to highlight specific garments of different groups of women and look at what each said explicitly about their circle. In my choices of cultures and clothing, I also sought to find pieces that represented various topics and concepts that we had learned and explored throughout the last eight weeks. 

There were various objectives I wanted to meet with my writing for this project. The first one was to highlight misconceptions that we commonly have about certain cultural garments. One example that I used for this was the hijab. Through our unit on Islam and our extensive readings on the wearing of the hijab, I was drawn to highlight its ability to be a fashion statement just as much as it is a religious one. Society, because of media misrepresentation and single stories of the culture, has often linked the hijab to the idea of subjugation. Many see it as the antithesis of feminism. In reality, it is quite the opposite. Musliim women who choose to wear a head covering do so by their own free will. While some states do still exist that make it a mandate to cover, most are progressing away from this traditional and sexist way of operating. For the majority of Muslim women, covering is seen as a privilege and a religious duty that exhibits their dedication to their faith. This dedication, as mentioned before, does not mean it has to be unfashionable. I wanted to highlight through my blog the many prints and styles of hijab that exist for Islamic women to dress and have fun with. Another misconception surrounds the kimono of Japan. For many, the depiction of the kimono often stems from some form of fighting movie that was Americanized and popular in the states. It also typically pictures only a male wearing such garments. Through this blog I wanted to show that traditional garments do exist for women and in actuality are much more complicated than the males. While this might simply be a stylistic detail, it seems to be the culture’s own reflection of how they view women as a whole, touching on another objective I sought to meet within my project. 

Throughout this project, I also wanted to achieve a series of connections between the garments and some of the specific topics we learned throughout the summer. One of these was colonialism and post-colonialism. We can look specifically at the dress of the Herero women to see this illustrated. Mimicking much of the 19th century Victorian women’s dresses, the Herero women are known for their clothing called the Herero dress. The garment that identifies the women are not of their own creation, but yet a piece of German socialization that was left behind following their early 20th century invasion. The Herero dress still exists today, but not for the reasons one would assume. In their pursuit to convert and conquer the Herero tribe, the Germans were the perpetrators behind a mass genoicde that wiped out a majority of the tribe. Not only did they leave behind trauma and pain, but also their style. The Herero women of today wear the dress not to show that they were products of cultural diffusion, but rather as a symbol of rebellion. By wearing the piece on their own terms and in their own styles, they believe they have taken back a bit of their history and made it their own. Another piece of clothing that we can see through the eyes of post-colonialism is the maasai shuka. The Maasai are a group of semi-nomadic people residing around the area of Kenya in Africa. Brough to the area by both Scottish missionaries and colonizers, the shuka resembles a blanket and can be draped in various ways to cover and protect the body. It is known for its bright colors and prints that can vary based on location in the region and the group of people within the Maasai that wear it. 

Aside from connections to our learning topics and exhibiting the misconceptions of some cultural pieces of clothing, I also wanted to highlight basic garments that were traditional in some popular nations, but are often overlooked within the eyes of Americans. These are pieces like the Ao Dai in Vietnam and the tichel in Judaism. While the garments can be interwoven into the themes and objectives mentioned prior, the emphasis on their existence is what I really sought to highlight within the blog. 

Growing up in a household dedicated to profiting off of and maintaining what you look like, I have always understood the power, both positive and negative, that clothing holds. Fashion gives us confidence. This can be confidence in ourselves, confidence in our faith and religious ties, or confidence in our culture and nationality. Regardless of its form, it gives us a boost, a push that allows us to feel empowered in all that we choose to do. Yet, there is another side to its power. Fashion also creates divides. It can separate one class from another, one nationality from its neighboring state, and even one age group from those above and below it. Regardless of its purpose or the role it plays for the women and other individuals who wear the pieces, all fashion can be united under one word: beauty. Each piece featured within this project shows dedication to a variety of things. There is dedication to the garment itself, dedication to a nation of origin, and even dedication to a specific religion. Each of the pieces show intricate designs and bright colors, all of which represent those who wear it and the regions from which they originate. They also embody the strength of the women who wear them. For the Herero women, we see the capability to overcome cultural subjugation and persecution. For the Muslim women, we see the power to separate themselves from society and profess their faith and beliefs through the covering of their hair. For Jewish women, we see the fortitude to break a tradition long dominated by men, and the slow and progressive adoption of the tzitzit into daily wear. Each has their own story, their own origin, their own connection to those who wear them, yet all embody beauty and promote the strength of the females who are fighting for a place within their own cultures and within society as a greater whole.

[dreadnought-dear-captain]

Happy (Slightly Belated) Birthday, Baghdad Waltz!

*CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR BAGHDAD WALTZ UP TO CHAPTER 37*

I know these are stressful times right now, but I wanted to post a little something for BW’s third birthday on 3/13/2020 (and I’m a little late because I had a lot to say). THREE!! I cannot believe it. Truly, I cannot, but here we are. I know there are still a few stragglers hanging around from when I first started posting this story (extra hearts to you all), so many people who have come and gone and sometimes return again, and so many new people joining this crazy journey all the time. 

You are all so great, and you make it possible for me to keep writing this. I probably would have quit a long time ago without your support, because this shit has been quite hard to sustain sometimes. I know I am very bad at keeping up with comments and things, and I’m so sorry.  I am terrible with social media, too. People IRL will say the same thing about me. I am super old school and still talk on the phone with my friends. I KNOW. 

(Heyyyy Bayside High)

I’ve prepared a couple of things for BW’s birthday. First, a few statistics I thought I’d whip up. Then a few questions and answers about BW, both from myself and from my beloved beta, @pitchforkcentral86​. And I’m still trucking away diligently at chapter 38! I just have a few scenes to go. 

 -- BW Statistics -- 

---------------------------------------------

Words to date: 526,011

Chapters to date: 37

Shortest chapter: 3,821 words (Prologue)

Longest chapter: 31,395 words (Chapter 33)

Number of words per chapter: 12,530 (median), 14,257 (average) (note: the median is probably a better measure, since this is such an abnormal distribution - see below for the changes in chapter length over time)

Estimated total work to date: 2,890-3,120 hours (approx 18-20 hours/week). This includes writing, rewriting, editing, research, conversations with beta, outlining, and a small portion of the brainstorming. This is a conservative estimate and only includes a fraction of the ambient thinking I do about this story. And God, I do so much processing when I sleep! Perhaps I will be a BW “expert” -- estimated at around 10,000 hours I guess? -- by the time I am done with the story and all my revisions hahahahaaaaaa D: 

Money spent to date (estimated): $600-700. This includes books on various subject matter and writing craft, video access to therapy education resources, and other educational materials. This does not include the incalculable sum in lost productivity from thinking about BW when I’m supposed to be doing other things!

Most of you probably don’t know this, but @pitchforkcentral86​ is not just a beta reader. She is my partner in crime with BW. She knows my characters as well as I do, sometimes better. She helps me troubleshoot scenes, she tells me when my writing sucks, when my I’m not being true to my characters, when I’m not being real enough (sometimes when I’m being TOO real). She gives me porn inspiration and listens to me bitch and calls my bullshit and makes this story what it is. I really mean it - this story would not be nearly as good without her, and you can see how much better it gets once she starts to get involved around chapter 17. 

So I decided I would answer some silly little questions about BW. Just my own personal opinions about stuff! And asked @pitchforkcentral86​ to contribute as well. See below. 

What are my favorite scenes in BW and why? 

In no particular order: 

The 9/11 memory (Chapter 26): When Steve is in therapy with Hope remembering when Bucky returns from Ground Zero. This was one of the first times I experimented with writing in a sort of stream-of-consciousness way (though certainly not the last!). I have done several tweaks to it since the original version, texturing it more. It’s so rich in detail, visceral detail, little details about their relationship, pieces of Bucky’s past, clues about his alcoholism, the way he handles stress, his difficulties letting Steve in, the love Steve has for him, Bucky’s need to be loved and cared for and his aversion for it, it’s so, so rich. Gah. I love it. (GUH and @buckydunpun​’s ART - just murder me. Thanks.)

The Thor “breakup” scene (Chapter 28): This is the moment I think that many people realized Bucky is not a reliable narrator. Maybe they suspected it before, but this is when it’s very obviously apparent. His entire interpretation of his relationship with Thor is thrown into question. He built a rich fantasy about what they were, holding hands in the grass, all this bullshit, and he could actually say they were boyfriends, which makes complete sense because there were never any stakes. It was always surface. There was never any intimacy except as veteran/soldier friends who had sex, which is about as deep as Bucky can go anyway without getting utterly terrified. 

This is in such stark contrast to Steve, where there is actual intimacy, ongoing demand for more intimacy, and this relationship feels VERY real to Bucky, and it’s very frightening to him. And that’s why he runs from the term “boyfriend” with Steve. It’s all so real. It’s easy to engage with a fake boyfriend. But still, he didn’t deliberately realize he was doing this, so it was devastating to find out the truth of his own self-deception. And to hear that he’s not the kind of guy you settle with, he’s the guy you fuck… wow. But how can you really hate Thor? (I’m sure some of you can but…) He’s a nice guy. Even Bucky knows it. So he’s run from something good and real (Steve) to something good but false (Thor) and then he gets rejected from both. It’s horrible and so self-defeating and so quintessentially Bucky. I love it. 

A Close Second (Spent Brass fic): This whole side fic came together like a glorious dream. I love everything about it. It’s such a wonderful look into their relationship, into their dynamics, into their individual personalities, their idiosyncrasies, so much push-pull between them. Whispers of things that have happened to Bucky in the past, a lack of understanding from Steve, a desire to know, so much affection. Some good sex. I love this SB. But I love all the Spent Brass fics. They are so close to my heart. 

Honorable mention: Bucky’s masturbation scene during his bender (Chapter 32). I had an absolute BLAST writing this. Thanks to @pitchforkcentral86​ for proposing that Bucky’s core sexual/romantic desire is just to be kissed. Dayum. It all unfolded from there. 

Who is the character I think about the most? Bucky. I think because he’s got the most complex history and the most complicated psychology. He’s actually fairly rule-bound in terms of how he operates, but he’s got a lot of back story that explains how he became the way he is, and I spend a lot of time considering what happened to him and how he developed his self-image, his coping strategies, and his ideas about others and the world. I think a lot about his relationship with his parents. I think a LOT about bby Jamie. It’s not because Steve is not important or any less complex. But Bucky’s childhood experiences have shaped him in very specific ways, and I want to make sure that I represent them very thoughtfully. 

Who is my favorite character to write? Bucky. His voice and thought processes come to me more easily than Steve’s. Perhaps in part because of my personal penchant for the word “fuck.” I love writing his perspective, his preferences, his interpretations of situations. I love imagining the way he imagines the world. 

Who is my favorite supporting character? Winnie. I know she’s a very polarizing character, but I have so much affection for her. I think she’s a badass. She joined the military as a female officer back in the 1970s, which is incredible and rough. She kept her maiden name. This is a Southern conservative woman, an Air Force brat, raised by very conservative Southern people in a very conservative Pentecostal church, but she has always had an irrepressible rebellious, feminist badass streak in her even before she knew what feminism was. She might not even define herself as a feminist now. She has always done the best she can under very difficult circumstances, and she loves her kids, even though she sometimes sucks quite badly at mothering them. I love her for her imperfections. 

Favorite topic to research this year: I’ve been really enjoying researching emotionally focused couples therapy, which was developed by Sue Johnson, EdD. I’ve been watching therapy videos of couples going through this and having a wonderful time imaging Bucky and Steve going through something similar with Claire. I don’t think Claire is the strictest adherent to EFT, but I think she’s informed by it. It’s tough, because I’m very used to cognitive behavioral type therapies, so this one has been different to think about writing. I’ve also been really getting into reading about childhood sexual abuse and its effects on boys and men. It’s greatly helped my conceptualization of Bucky and Bucky and Steve’s relationship. I mean, it’s a grim topic, but there have been some fascinating threads in terms of understanding one’s self perception of sexual orientation, etc. and thinking about how Bucky would consider and contextualize his experiences. 

Am I more of a Steve or a Bucky? Hmm. I don’t strongly relate to either, but I think if I had to choose, I’m a bit more of a Steve. I’m pretty expressive of my affection and positive emotions, and I’ll complain about daily life things enough. However, when it comes to major life events that really bother me, I tend to err on the side of not processing them and turning my feelings into headaches and other physical afflictions. In other words, I’m a suppressor of major emotions and events. It’s FINE. I’m FINE. Nothing to see here. But I am definitely not as tidy as Steve, nor as smart, and definitely not as buff or hot. So that’s where most of our similarities end lol. I do eat a lot of tofu though. 

Who would I want to hang out with for a day? I initially thought Rikki, but like @pitchforkcentral86​, think she’s actually too cool and smart for me, and I would probably just make an ass out of myself. I think probably Elektra. I know, this is a left field answer, but it’s one day! To do whatever with anyone! I want to choose someone who’s going to make it worth my while. So many of the characters are either too busy, too rigid, too anxious, too conventional, etc. I would want to run around NYC with Elektra for the day and have drinks with her and Matt afterwards at some weird-ass underground bar. My more infield answer would probably be Hank. I want him to tell me gay stories about gay things. I want to see his apartment. I want to drink coffee with him. I want him to tell me about what the AIDS crisis was like for him. I want to hear about his relationship with Howard. I want all the shit that Bucky takes for granted every day. He can be my fairy godmother any day. 

Who would I want to be friends with? Probably Sharon. She’s one of the most reliable, loyal, and level-headed people in this world. She’s smart, she’s flexible, she rolls with things pretty well but also doesn’t take a ton of bullshit. She also has a good sense of humor about things. I feel like she’s someone I could call with my Zack Morris phone and talk with for hours about all sorts of things. We could also split a bottle of wine and talk some real shit. 

Wait - Why not Bucky or Steve? I don’t think these two are entirely likable, to be honest. They’re good humans, they mean well, but I don’t think they’re very well equipped in the friendship department.  I care about them very deeply (I hope that’s clear), but I don’t know if I’d want to be particularly close to either of them at this point in their lives. They’re both lacking in the skill and perspective to be good friends and partners, which is a major reason why they are in therapy. 

Who would I want to be my therapist - Hope, Bruce, Scott, or Claire? Claire. Given how much I suck at talking about the things that are really deeply bothering me, I think I would need an emotionally focused therapist who is going to dig in there and really get me to focus on all the emotions I’m trying to shove away. I would probably try to over-intellectualize everything and deflect, and I don’t think she’d let me get away with that. 

Okay, on to @pitchforkcentral86​~~~~~

What are my favorite scenes in BW and why? 

Oh boy. Well, this is a difficult question to answer since it feels like every chapter becomes a new favorite simply due to sheer amount of time spent planning and composing and revising and whining and complaining. And also my memory sucks. BUT, with that said, I think I would like to mention three scenes specifically:

1)      Bucky on deployment, cleaning a Humvee (Chapter 7), Steve standing nearby. This scene conveyed the tension of deployment and between Steve and Bucky so well, and, perhaps more importantly, built my respect towards Bucky as a competent, caring NCO (to that effect, the small scene in which we see Bucky the NCO on film telling all the little grunts to eat so they can become big and strong is another favorite).

2)      Beautiful Boy (Spent Brass), Steve’s memory from childhood with Sarah at the park, naming animals. I really don’t have a good reason other than that scene was so clear to me in my mind and was especially tender.

3)      Steve sleeping with Sharon in DC (Chapter 33). Honestly, it was just a great scene, and we had a really good time planning it out.

I can include many more, and certainly the ones Dread mentioned are favorites too, but I have to stop or this will just be a squeee fest.

Who is my favorite supporting character?

 Hank. His particular brand of honesty is extremely appealing to me, and I think Bucky secretly, or not so secretly, loves him too. And also Quill, just for shits and giggles because he is reliably there as an ice breaker, that lovable Mountain-Dew-drinking goof.  

Favorite topic to research this year: 

Well, I don’t do the research myself, but I spend many, many m-a-n-y hours listening to and conversing with Dread about all the things he’s delved into for this fic. So I guess maybe I’ll turn this question into favorite topic to discuss/conceptualize. In that respect, Bucky’s and Jack’s relationship has been by far the most intriguing, grueling, fascinating and difficult aspect of this fic to conceptualize – those were some of the best talks in the process. [Dreadnought edit: You will see much more of this in future chapters, folks!] And for a fun answer, planning out sex scenes is hilarious.

Am I more of a Steve or Bucky?

Bucky, no doubt. Sometimes it feels like Dread has climbed into my brain, found a horrible nugget of truth about me, and then put it into words coming out of Bucky’s mouth. Those moments are both wonderful and terrible in equal measure.

Who would I want to hang out with for a day?

For a whole day? Can it maybe be a coffee or, like, a quick lunch? I honestly don’t know… Neither Steve nor Bucky will be very good company, I think. Not in their current versions, anyways. Rikki is hella cool but she intimidates me, so, not her. Um.. Huh. Nope, don’t have an answer.

Who would I want to be friends with?

Probably Hank, again. He has a really good attitude. I’m starting to feel like not picking Steve/Bucky is selfish because it’s like “oh, they have too many issues and it won’t be fun”. But it’s also true! Friendship is reciprocal, and I really don’t think that’s where they’re at. (But I would have totally been dying to be friends with Steve in his bookshop days). 

Who would I want to be my therapist - Hope, Bruce, Scott, or Claire?

Hope or Claire. Both are no-nonsense competent therapists. But I think maybe Hope will be too put-together for me. So, yeah, probably Claire. 

-----------------------------

Okay, everyone. Back to the grind. I’ll update as soon as I can!  Remember to wash your hands with the fastidiousness of BW Steve Rogers. (And also remember to sing the “happy birthday fucking everyone” song, which should actually be sung TWICE or resentfully enough that it lasts 20 seconds.)

[vroenis]

The 2019 Charlie’s Angels Reboot Was A Good Project & Deserved More Respect From Hollywood

We’ve just finished watching the film and there was a lot both J and I really enjoyed about it. We’re critical of media and art in different ways and I certainly don’t speak for them, as for me, oddly I’m lenient in ways that they probably aren’t when it comes to production and culture. I don’t have to dive too deeply into the cultural response to this picture to know how it went down, I’ve come into contact with just enough of it to have a clear understanding of the popular digest. The response is not at all unexpected, it’s just uninformed.

I feel that the 2019 (year of publishing) Charlie’s Angels reboot was a good project with a wonderful spirit. Elizabeth Banks’ aims were clearly evident in the final product, however it may have been shaped along the way, and that it was under-served in the production process likely from the very beginning.

This casting is fantastic.

I do wish there were better cast-ensemble promos for me to lift from the internet and wonder whether that’s another telltale sign of production or whether the heat has just faded since release and they’ve just dropped out of the archives but I struggled to find well composed images.

The first short sizzle-teaser I ever saw for the film, I thought was quite good. Neckbeards and mouthbreathers won’t have paused for a second thought before launching hate for the project - anything in the most vague proximity of feminism or empowerment of women, or even simply just not being centred around men - will be enough to bring snide internet snark by the truckload. It remains interesting that men continue to struggle to live in a world where there can be things that also exist that are not for them, they cannot simply let these other things also exist without contributing in some way. As it were, the project looked good. Sharp, clever, playful, and a timely reboot reclaimed in the most contemporary way. When I looked up the production details and found out Banks was championing it herself, I really took an interest in it. As the first full trailers released, the casting looked great - genuinely diverse and with real chemistry, I hoped it would find the audience it was looking for.

J and I have had a lot going on in our lives over the last two years and still do. We’ve gone to theatres I think twice in that whole time, maybe three times and I think two of those were gift certificates generously paid for by family. So tonight we finally got around to watching Charlie’s Angels. If we’d seen this in theatres, I’d have still be satisfied and had the same evaluation.

A production budget of $55 million is low-balling a project of this scope; 

There seems to have been a bit of pre-production shuffling and Banks did a lot of wrangling herself early on. 

The whole shoot front to back was just over two months and I assume three countries, US/or studio inclusive. 

CGI is noticeably subpar but not exactly cheap either, so it still would have cost a significant portion of that prod. budget. When I say subpar, the CG in this film isn’t bad, please don’t take that criticism as overly negative of the CG artists’ work - remember that people do the best they can with the time and money they’re afforded. If you want to understand what that’s all about, I encourage you to watch Corridor Crew’s channel on YouTube.

Combat choreography with principle actors isn’t great, there’s far too much editing but again, I’m betting there wasn’t a whole lot of money and thus time for training and rehearsing for them, so combat is noticeably slow. 

2nd Unit photography looked very good because this kind of thing is very old-school Hollywood in that it contributes to what makes an action/spy movie look like one. Unfortunately, that means it was also expensive. We’re really running out of money here...

There is a lot of licensed music in this feature which isn’t cheap at all. Again this feels super old-school Hollywood and definitely demographic targeting, but it firmly timestamps the feature - any film, really - and unless your film is about capturing the essence of the time IT WAS THE 80′s! or FOLK FESTIVALS JUST BEFORE COVID BROKE OUT as an example of not necessarily wanting to capture the past, I really think trying to nail down pop songs of the hot present ultimately does your film a disservice.

And I’ll address that one first because I feel like it may have been one of the easiest changes to make to lift the overall quality of the picture. Instead of burning thru an immense amount of budget on a pile of pop licenses, I think a calculated risk could have been taken in getting a young contemporary musician to create a slick electronic score in its entirety to back it along side the generic orchestral action fare, no disrespect to Brian Tyler. To be honest, Tyler probably could have done it all himself but was also probably just writing to spec. BUT HEY... WHY NOT SCOUT FOR ANY NUMBER OF AMAZING WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE PHENOMENAL ELECTRONIC MUSICIANS AND PRODUCERS what am I talking about it’s Hollywood...

This is what I mean by the project deserving more respect and being under-served. Hollywood doesn’t believe in projects like this, they don’t realise what the project is and why it needs frontier, sincere, good faith hiring and instead under-funds but funds it nevertheless SEE? WE FUNDED IT, WE DID THE GOOD THING, SEE US SUPPORTING THE WIMMINS? WE’RE NOT  SEXISTS YOU CAN’T SAY WE’RE SEXISTS YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FILM oh it didn’t do very well except we didn’t let you make it the way you wanted to make it, we still shackled you to 

THE SAME TERRIBLE HOLLYWOOD TRADITIONS THAT, BY THE WAY, ARE FAILING OUR MANLY MAN MOVIES FULL OF MEN HOLY SHIT THE DEBT-RECOVERY CYCLE IS REALLY DOING A NUMBER ON OUR INVESTORS I SURE HOPE WE DON’T HAVE TOO MANY CONSECUTIVE FAILURES OR, SAY, SOME KIND OF GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC AND/OR ECONOMIC EVENT HAND-WRINGING

ahem where was I

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross provided the entire soundtrack for The Social Network and it’s both fantastic and timeless. OK oranges and refrigerators, but the principle still stands - I get the intent of Charlie’s Angels was a summer blockbuster but it would have still been elevated by being all the more slick having its own identity in music, having its own sound. You want that soundtrack by that amazing young woman because it sounds fucken awesome.

Charlie’s Angels still needed a few passes by a dialogue editor. I say that a lot. I know my standards are high and it’s a Hollywood film. There’s no problem at all with the vernacular, idioms and the casual language, that was all fine. It’s always just the little details - again, it’s always time and money which - really is just money. A good dialogue editor or script supervisor might have been able to just elevate this whole thing to that super-smooth level of flowing just right. Or perhaps if the actors had spent more time in training and combat rehearsal together, they’d have riffed better and improvised more. They still have good on-screen chemistry but again, more time - more money for time - and things improve.

If you don’t know my taste in film, you could see if you recognise anything in the Film Notes page of this journal, but it’s totally OK if you don’t. Basically most of them are long and boring, with super long takes of people not saying or doing much. I still love Hollywood films tho - I love all cinema and I’ll repeat like a broken record, I should either add a section to Film Notes of my favourite blockbusters or create a page for them. Anyway - Charlie’s Angels still has too much editing mostly due to the aforementioned combat, but also because of that good old Hollywood formulaic style-guide. It’s easy to look up the production credits and pluck out names but on a project like this, it’s difficult to pin the end result on the roles themselves. In these cases, personnel like editors are more like daily jobs rather than creative contributors which again is an immense shame. I catch myself before saying “It doesn’t have to be a Malick/Shortland/Lynch project...” but why not? Why can’t a summer blockbuster have its own fantastic identity? General audiences can identify Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan - sure, one or perhaps both of these people take themselves far too seriously, but why not let a project have its own identity?

We run back into the conversation of protecting investments and style guides.

The easy answer to Bay and Nolan is they’re men, but they’ve also had time to prove their worth over time with previous work and track record. Because they’ve had the privilege to do so. Because they’re men. And most of the people making decisions and letting them experiment and sometimes fail to recover investment on their projects and hey, don’t worry, just try again, are men - and they were permitted to try again because they were themselves men.

Whether individual men do or don’t deserve whatever they did or didn’t get, I’m not here to discuss. Many of them definitely didn’t and I can’t change it.

What we should be changing is how we finance, how we empower and how we hand over autonomy of projects to women in cinema, in the arts - in professional life, in any industry.

YOU DON’T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT

So. Fucking. What.

I can make educated guesses and I can support as much as possible as fair and equitable an arts industry wherever I engage with it.

I really liked Charlie’s Angels. It had a lot of heart. It had a wonderful sense of play and sass and smarts. Yes, a few too many “why didn’t they just shoot the bad guy” moments etc. - again - script reviews, better writers, more time...

More money.

More respect from an industry that doesn’t respect women and women’s autonomy; social, professional, in all aspects.

I hope Elizabeth Banks wants to make another one, can raise the finances for it and has even more control of the next project. More power to her.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to Do Nothing: Jenny Odell's case for resisting "The Attention Economy"

Artist and writer Jenny Odell (previously) is justifiably beloved for her pieces and installations that make us consider the economics and meanings of garbage, weird markets, and other 21st century plagues; in her first book, How To Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy, Odell draws on art criticism, indigenous practices, "Deep Listening," anti-capitalist theory, and psychology to make the case that the internal chaos we feel is no accident: it's the result of someone's business-model, and until we reject "productivity" in favor of contemplation and deliberation, it will only get worse.

Odell's central thesis is hard to pin down; part of her subject-matter here is that really important ideas don't neatly distill down to short, punchy summaries or slogans -- instead, they occupy a kind of irreducible, liminal complexity that has to be lived as much as discussed.

With that in mind, the broad strokes of her book are that:

* The rise of "productivity" as a measure of the quality of life is incredibly destructive, and it obliterates everything inside and outside of us that make us happy, because sleep and love and laughter and beauty are not "productive."

Odell links this to neoliberal capitalism, and the requirement that each of us be a hustling entrepreneur, which, in turn, is a way for capital to shift risk onto labor. It's a scam that moves both wealth and joy off of our balance sheets and onto the balance sheets of the super-rich.

This is very strong material, and it reminds me of the one conversation I had with David Allen, author of "Getting Things Done." Allen lamented that everyone pays close attention to the first two parts of his book (which focus on making sure that the stuff you decide to do get done) and skip over the third part (which focuses on deciding what to do).

* That doing "nothing" doesn't mean becoming a hermit: it requires more social engagement, not less

Odell builds on the idea that capitalism atomizes us and makes us stand alone and think about our relations to others in instrumental, individualistic terms; the reason social media is toxic isn't that it connects us with others, it's how it connects us with others. Doing "nothing" (that is, spending your time doing "meaningful," rather than "productive" things) requires that we find ways to genuinely interact with others.

This reminded me strongly of Patrick Ball's incredible essay on depression and suicide, and the reason that affluent white dudes are the most suicidal people in America today. Ball's thesis is that people who lack privilege must forge social relations with the people around them just to survive. If you have no money for a babysitter, you can substitute favors from friends.

"Favors from friends" are unreliable and nondeterministic, while spending cash with a sitter (or better, a service that has many interchangeable sitters) is extremely reliable. But if you keep substituting transactions for social networks, you'll eventually end up lonely and outside of any kind of social group that can form a resilient mesh for your inevitable problems: there's no one to put a hand on your shoulder, look you in the eyes, and say, "Are you all right? You seem to be in trouble."

Reading Ball's essay made me realize how much of a hermit I'd become, substituting work and transactions and "productivity" for friendship and connection, and how much of the anxiety and depression I was experiencing was the result of this isolation.

Social media is a great way to stay in touch with the people who matter to me, so that we can have offline, longer-form, important and meaningful interactions. But the commercial imperatives of social media work against that kind of socializing, because once you get together and start to have those contemplative and meaningful interactions, your social telephone starts ringing, because the algorithms that govern it notice that you're not paying attention to it anymore.

* That refusing to pay attention is an act with a long and honorable history

Odell traces the traditions of refusal from the ancient Greeks to avant-garde artists, and connects these to feminism and liberation struggles. This was fascinating context, and often very funny, and felt like something of a masterclass in understanding abstract art as well

* That cities have unique properties that make them hubs of resistance

The struggle against our reduction into productive workforce units, as opposed to thriving, contemplating, loving humans is the struggle against monoculture. Cities, with their diversity of people, backgrounds, incomes, social situations, and so on are the perfect place to resist monoculture. Places where strangers mix, like public transit, are hotbeds of resistance.

Odell also lauds "third places" here, the places that are outside the market, like libraries and parks, where your welcome is not dependent on your productive contributions, which ask nothing of you except that you be there.

And even as Odell is praising cities here, she's also working in a strong environmental message, connecting refusal to indigenous practices of attentive co-existence with the natural world, and connecting that to the complex idea of "bioregionalism," which involves identifying as a person whose place matters, whose views on the world and daily activities are influenced by the things that grow and thrive around you.

I've been around "bioregionalism" advocates for much of my life, and I admit I still struggle with some of the nuance of this idea, but Odell's connection feels right, and I really enjoyed the way she connected the beauty of cities -- which I love -- with an appreciation of, and connection to, the natural world.

* That technology isn't the problem, but rather, its economic and political context are what get us in trouble

This is the argument that puts Odell in the same group as some of my other favorite thinkers, like Leigh Phillips, Paul Mason, and Peter Frase.

Like the others, Odell doesn't argue the simple position that technology is neutral, but rather takes the position that technology's current decidedly partisan configuration is the result (and not the cause) of market ideology that demands growth, consumption and "engagement" instead of joy, meaning and peace.

It's an important point: Odell isn't telling us to stop using technology, but to use different technology in different ways.

There is so much to love about this book: Odell's discursive, interdisciplinary critique approaches an important and difficult question from many different angles, making it a chewy, provocative pleasure of a book.

But all that said, I'm looking forward to her next book. I know from my own work that what feels like irreducible complexity is often a lack of clarity. That is, just because you think you've made something as clear and simple as it can be, it doesn't mean you're right, it might just mean that you don't understand your own material well enough, and have not spent enough time trying to explain it to other people in order to learn what parts of it are important and which parts can be left to one side.

As much as I love this book, I also think that there is room to make it crisper, and some of that room will come from Odell gaining clarity as she tours with and discusses these ideas, and some of it will come from the rest of the world catching up with her -- when we started talking about online privacy, there was a lot of getting-up-to-speed that had to happen before the discussion could start. Today, the baseline of familiarity that others have with the ideas is much farther along, and so the discourse is more substantial and less about getting on the same page (this is also true of other complicated debates, including the contemporary critique of capitalism and concerns over climate change).

That's not to say that Odell has fallen into the trap of the masochistic longread ("because paying close attention to complicated ideas is a virtue, I will simply write this idea out in sprawling and undisciplined form, because the longer it is, the more virtue it has"). This book never bores. However, it does leave the reader with more feelings (which are good and important!) than clear articulation (also good and important!), and I think that Odell's continuing trailblazing will find a place where these two virtues are more in balance.

How To Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy [Jenny Odell/Melville House]

https://boingboing.net/2019/04/09/resisting-attention-economy.html

[zimboxl]

Jargon Tourettes

Top 10 Overused Jargon 2018*

Overused Jargon (OJ) tells us what the media savvy think is relevant, useful, and popular. In some ways jargon is a gatekeeper, a cliquish code to separate those who get it from those who don’t. My selection is indicative of general trends with a bias towards the African arts and development worlds. These words are not sacred, and they need to be satirized and tested so that they don't become enshrined, unconsidered, shallow symbols of in-group identification. Perhaps this can help to prevent the alienating and misleading effects jargon can have. Consider this a satirical vaccination against sophistry and let’s hope for a better tomorrow where cryptic condescension gives way to shared comprehension.

Innovation

The elder states-person, the OG of OJ. 'Innovation' has somehow managed to remain atop the charts in spite of becoming a caricature of itself over the years. It also feels like we've been innovating for decades now, we might be due for some consolidation and refinement. Innovation's longevity is a product of its flexibility (it can mean many things), its vapidity (it can mean nothing), and the novelty-chasing tech-centric culture du jour.

Eg. “The Innovation Initiative was initially based on the premise that all change is good. It later became The Department of Unexpected Consequences.”

Engagement

Whether it's measured in links clicked, or viewing time, engagement is usually a euphemism for 'keeping an audience's attention more deeply for longer periods of time'. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this in itself, any creator wants their work to be engaging. Unfortunately, truly valuable engagement is about quality of experience, not just stats. It also turns out that trolling, click-bait, bot-baes, and other tricks work just as well, if not better than creating compelling, meaningful content - assuming that pure statistical engagement is the goal here. Even eliciting hate and outrage in the audience is preferred to eliciting the dreaded indifference.

Eg. “Once middle-aged super-users started gouging their own eyes out the e-ghetto slum lords sought to maintain high levels of user engagement by injecting digital crack directly into user’s blood streams via a fleet of nano-drones.”

Unpack

It's not mansplaining if you preface your long-winded speech with, “let me just unpack that before we move on...”  Poetic allusions to heavy baggage give this bit of OJ an ironic edge. Have you ever felt burdened by verbose unpacking? I have.

Eg. “As the morning's first speaker, I unpacked the topic of discussion at such length the moderator had to stop me so we could break for lunch.”

Girl Child

A steady climber over the years. Indicative of gendered global SJW trends, the Girl Child™ is now the holy grail of target demographics and beneficiaries. The term is particularly popular in development circles where its feminist paternalistic slant strangely fits the industry-wide vestigial-colonial vibe. Besides, 'Starving African' just feels so 1900s.

Eg. “Emergency! The ship is sinking! All women, girl children, and gender-non-binary-human-meat-sacks may board the life rafts first! The rest of you can fuck off.”

Decolonization

An up and coming term with the potential to rise even further in the charts. Its ceiling depends mostly on whether or not it remains a trophy word spoken in seminars and galleries. If it matures into active programs that directly enact de-colonial agendas the word may have to share the stage with other relevant but unsexy terms like 'supply chains', 'resource redistribution', 'local staff', etc. It also has immense potential as a linguistic camouflage for bad art. Those who criticize 'de-colonial art' may easily be shamed and dismissed as colonists, apologists, or sympathizers. The thoughtful critical landscape is pretty thin so similar strategies may be applied with other identity-centric words to shield questionable work from honest criticism.

Eg. “The former farm invader liberator had diversified his portfolio to include decolonizing luxury resorts, one free vacation at a time.”

Afro-Futurism

This once exciting term is at risk of becoming nostalgic dross due to how much it's been bandied about in African arts circles. It's a victim of its own success. A tell-tale marker of when a term becomes OJ is that it inspires satire of a higher quality and awareness than sincere works.

Eg. “Afro-futurism enables us to imagine a future where our collective conscious, aka Wakanda, has morphed into a touch screen cell phone that purifies drinking water, and cures HIV.”

Beneficiary

If a heroine feeds a starving village and no one sees it, did they all just starve instead? There can be no benefactors without beneficiaries and they must be documented, preferably smiling in situ despite the squalor that surrounds them. As a citizen of a country where most adults are unemployed I'd argue that employed development professionals should also be counted among the so-called beneficiaries. There's no shame in getting paid if you do a good job.

Eg. “As I saw the tears of unrestrained joy flow from the beneficiaries' eyes I knew my genocidal ancestors' crimes had been forgiven in full. If anything, I'd earned some extra credit for future generations.”

Toxic Masculinity

The shortest way to describe a Tarantino movie. Some people seem to believe that all masculinity is toxic, but we unfortunately don't have a popular catch phrase for them yet. Many men try to camouflage themselves by borrowing the props, costumes, and behaviors of their perceived superiors, essentially flaunting their overseer's whip. You know it when you see it.

Eg. “The game show host gave Chloe a choice between experiencing an unspecified act of toxic masculinity and ingesting mercury; Chloe chose mercury.”

Curate

Curating used to happen in museums and galleries, ideal environments for  showing others you have better taste and ideas than the unwashed masses. Now it's everywhere. Seemingly overnight the jargoneers stopped simply 'choosing things to sell in their shops' and started 'curating bespoke collections for their boutiques'. It’s the same thing, but with bougie overtones.

Eg. “The fuel station manager curated a collection of limited edition off-white sequined jerrycans for his most discerning customers.”

Interactive

I know what this word means to me, but after being assaulted by many misuses, and making many concessions for the sake of conversation and civility, I no longer have a clue what it means to the general public. I do know that in digital art circles it signifies 'cool', 'cutting edge', and 'dynamic'. At worst I've seen it used to describe a fixed work that people looked at without influencing in any way.

Eg. “The curator  of 'The Bricks are Present' was puzzled when the audience didn't transform into pro-bono builders despite the presence of the interactive bricks in the space.”

Conversation

Habitually misused by talking heads who would have you believe their one-sided monologues somehow constitute a conversation.

Eg. “Popular Instagrammer @Philosothot69 had an ongoing conversation with her thirsty horde of male fans wherein she mused about being more than just her looks while they sent her flaming eggplant emojis and tagged their friends.”

Problematic

Increasingly just a trendy way to add an air of faux-academic objectivity to ones' personal opinions and preferences. A newb might say, 'I didn't like District 9', but a true OJ guzzler will declare that it was problematic. Like many such words its rise began sincerely within relevant contexts, but it has since been taken up cynically in other contexts. In a few years it may just be something glib people say about petty things in the ceaseless quest to sound woke.

Eg. “When eventually Phil voiced his critical opinions about the concept sketches for the mural, Kuda quickly shushed him, reminding him that, generous funding aside, his uppity whiteness was problematic. Thus Kuda attained her black belt in the dark arts of juggling feminism and racial politics.”

Triggered

Triggered once referred to panic attacks that traumatized war veterans suffered after hearing loud noises or other shocking stimuli. Originally rooted in early studies of Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or shell-shock as it was known then, triggered can now be trotted out to describe how you feel when someone is wearing the same outfit as you at the grocery shop.

Eg. Overzealous auto-correct and my aversion for proof-reading ruined my broadcasted Annual Christmas Party invitation message. I got so triggered I like literally died.

* by 10 I meant 13.

[theresgloryforyou]

I've been following you for some time since you were commenting on a side-blog I run, and I appreciate a lot of your opinions on things. Recently in my sociology class we were discussing feminisms and radical feminism was listed as believing men are inherently shitty people (im summarising) rather than socialized that way, I'm curious as an older set of radfems if you two think that to be true or consider it to be a product of socialization that men act the way they do?

hello, thank you for your kind words.  I’ll try to be succinct in my answer.

your sociology class has, I think, taken the side of a minority of radical feminists in the definition there.  radical feminists have always been a spectrum of nature vs. nuture/ biological essentialism vs socialization.  it’s never been dominated wholly by one viewpoint.  I think there’s good reason for that-- if we stipulate “boys will be boys” they aren’t responsible for themselves, and if we stipulate “they aren’t bad, they were made that way” we ignore the fact that only one sex mysteriously ends up so very very shitty.

my blog partner and I have slightly differing opinions from each other on this.  I lean more towards essentialism.  I don’t think men are inherently shitty, but I think men are more inherently violent, which lends itself to shittiness.  I think this is biological, in that it has been proven in mammals generally that the male sex drive is linked to aggression and the female sex drive is not-- there have been no studies to my knowledge proving this scientifically in humans, but I find it hard to believe our species escaped this, especially given what reproductive sex consists of.  that said, this doesn’t mean men can’t control themselves, or that men should be written off-- it just means we should recognize the proclivaties of their sex and take it seriously.  like, if you have a son, understand he is at risk for being an aggressive shit because he is male, and you have to undercut that from birth.  you’ll be working against a natural inclination in most males, and again, this doesn’t excuse them, it just means they are disadvantaged.

yeah, that’s right, I think their bents make them weak, not more powerful.  biologically, males aren’t the default, they aren’t the stronger, they aren’t better, and they have this bent towards violence, which doesn’t benefit them individually in the long run, or the species as a whole.  I’d feel sorrier for them if they weren’t such a bag of dicks.

my blog partner leans far more towards socialization.  however, and this is a big caveat (and I feel weird writing for her here, but if I don’t get it right I know she’ll correct it later), she has said to me that under patriarchy this is an irrelevant distinction.  basically, patriarchy is so pervasive, entrenched, and has been around so long in most cultures that nature and nurture have blended into one.  men have been nurtured to be violent and sexually aggressive, from before birth in modern times, in utero, like the instant a family hears the fetus is male it’s all camo decor and guns and talk about football and ladies man shit.  everyone’s mindset is already there the instant the little boo pops out into the world, he doesn’t stand a chance even if he DOESN’T have an inherent bent to aggression.  our society as a whole has colluded to make it impossible for boys to be anything other than inherently shitty.

so I mean, I think there’s a lot of nuance in this conversation.  I like it that radfems are still having it, because when you confront male violence and the apathy that accompanies it, daily often, you have to eventually decide, I guess, whether or not you’re going to stick it out and fight for females who are bound to males by sexual desire or habit or custom, or if you’re going to opt out.  honestly I think both options are individually valid.  but socially we can’t opt out, not really.  I want to clarify, since we are radfems, neither of us thinks our job is to fix men.  our job is to fight for other women.  the main reason it’s useful to think about this for me, as an asexual, is where it dovetails with talking with nonradical women, and how to help them. (also as a writer, I guess, but that’s another issue.)

anyway, I hope this helps.

-piro

[feministangertranslator]

The Daily Deluge

Image from Femstella

Bombshells big and small are being dropped daily as the result of the #metoo movement. I feel disappointed I don't have more hours in the day to read every tidbit of news about what is shaping up to be another major chapter in feminism, let alone sit down, process, and write about my perspective on it. I really wanted to have written more here by now. I am so busy loving the smell the Napalm in the morning, it’s hard to get much of anything else done.  Sometimes I want to call in sick to everything and everybody, make a bowl of popcorn and watch the patriarchy burn down from the comfort of my cozy home.  Honestly, I could eat this shit up all day and don’t want to miss a minute of it.

This, unfortunately, leads me to often find myself in ravenous consumption mode as opposed to thoughtful and deliberate output mode: I am devouring all of the news of the men who have been accused of sexual misconduct and their (mostly ridiculous) statements - I’m not even going to call those PR and attorney crafted liability avoiders apologies. Equally, I enjoy all of the beautiful heart-filled articles, posts, and videos from other survivors of sexual assault who are expressing reactions, thoughts, and feelings to which I strongly relate. I have a docket of saved articles in my Facebook account, tons of bookmarked Instagram posts, and cued up podcasts competing for my attention. I have to force myself to pull out of the social media rabbit hole, get up and away from my computer (sometimes TV) to go brush my teeth, straighten my hair, put food in my mouth, earn money, and do other things that are vital to taking care of myself. They seem so much more boring in comparison to the day of reckoning that seems to be unfolding right before my eyes.

I must resist this siren call for a few reasons. Firstly, I know this is the position our capitalist society wants me in: too busy watching, ingesting, consuming, buying, and promoting the ideas and goods being peddled by others to get angry about all the more important injustices and inequities from the fallout of capitalism befalling me and the rest of us. Fuck that. That is one of the reasons why I stopped working in television. I couldn't imagine myself working so hard to be (if I were so lucky) a part of a successful show; at the end of the day, even the best creation will always be an opiate of the people to me.

Whether it is the thoughts, theories, or products of others, like most of us Americans, I have been trained to consume and have reveled in it for too long. (My family is Romanian and I can definitely see the difference in some of our shopping and lifestyle habits). And I want to use my time, energy, effort, voice and dollars to only support who and what I believe in, and what will support and sustain me. It’s not just money that I have to be concerned with, it’s time and energy - which frankly, are more precious, and affect me, my psyche and actions, and therefore my life, tremendously.

What I choose to consume has to have the purpose either to benefit, uplift or inspire me, too. Because I am also dying to create and share I have to be mindful to not overconsume to numb myself out and satiate the fire inside me to make stuff. While part of me wants America to take a few cues from the Nordic market economy model or conversely maybe give Libertarianism a real shot, American capitalism can obviously work for others, albeit a select handful. So I have to believe I am also worthy of a piece of that pie, and there has to be a market for what I have to offer.  

For example, I find myself obsessing about the Roy Moore story. I need to constantly remind myself that paying too much attention to him and Leigh Corfman, with whom I identify with strongly who was brave enough to shed light on how he molested her by grooming and taking advantage of her, at some point puts me in the observer and consumer mode. If I’m not careful, the contact high I get from her beautiful inspired acts can placate me enough to detract from what I can do for myself, too. It is definitely easier to watch her do it than to put myself out on a limb in the public eye, even though I passionately want to get out there myself.

As a woman who was at many points throughout my childhood, adolescence, and even adulthood silenced through intimidation and abuse, I must heed the call to speak up and let it surpass my urge to stay comfortable and quiet because I think it will keep me “safe.” I must constantly fight the further ingrained notion that others (especially men) know better than me. That I’m not worthy of listening to. Or that I don’t know quite enough yet to open my mouth. This has plagued me for years - despite getting an English degree from America’s top public university, making it through the ringer to become a licensed attorney in one of the most difficult states to pass the bar, ranking obscenely high in verbal ability on an IQ test, doing well at public speaking in some of my jobs, and even breaking into difficult industries and making multiple career changes.

External achievements are no match against a deeply long-held belief that I am only here to serve others, and my life, safety, comfort, and opinions don’t matter. It would follow and haunt me in every job or relationship I had. I truly believe it started with experiencing many “adverse childhood experiences,” specifically being sexually abused by someone in my family who was supposed to take care of me instead of use and abuse me. This, of course, set me up for many years of unconsciously repeating that dynamic in a lot of my other relationships and further cementing this completely false belief as a “truth” for me. I know this is why it is important for me to speak now. It is the antidote to all my internalized shame, hatred and anger. That was someone else’s bullshit, dysfunction and pain put upon me, and I don’t want it anymore. And if anything I say can help someone else stop putting up with it, too, it will all be worth it.

I know I am not fully ready to say or act upon all that I have weighing on my heart and mind yet. Because I am insanely jealous of the output of others who are, I know I will do it, too. I have to make small steps that work for me, be patient, and hold onto my knowing I will get there when it is my time. As Julia Cameron said in the Artist Way, jealousy is a roadmap; to paraphrase in my terms, its purpose is to tell you where you want to go, what you want to do, and who you want to be by making you so fucking mad when you see someone else is doing it and you are not. It’s that simple.

I know why I am a bit hesitant to say what I truly feel, talk about my own experiences, and make myself vulnerable to judgment. It is way easier to read something someone else did and share it with a quick comment on social media as opposed to say and create something from my own heart. There is less of my skin in the game. And the game of speaking out about feminism and sexual abuse and assault? I already know what the rules are. When women publicly speak out about anything related to women’s rights, people (almost all of them men) systematically call them fat and ugly and threaten to rape and kill them. They try to silence them by attacking their womanhood: their looks (what society has deemed a woman’s hottest commodity), their sense of emotional and personal safety (through means of violating the anatomical vulnerability of their genitals in comparison to men’s), their actual lives (murder, duh), and if that isn’t enough, their straight up worthiness of being alive (by making them feel unattractive, unsafe, unloved, unwanted, unintelligent, unworthy and ultimately emotionally annihilated). For a woman not up to withstanding that attack, the threatening perpetrator doesn’t have to actually follow through on his threat; his words and fear they create are enough. Men systemically perpetrating violence against women is alive and well in our culture and we all know it.

Wielding the power to drum up fear of personal attack or violence is the main tool used to control women and it can be incredibly effective against one who has already experienced such awful acts. And words can be just as powerful as actions in affecting someone’s sense of safety. These trolls know that. That’s exactly what Trump did to Rosie O’Donnell when he called her awful names and whatever else he has done to other women who ruffle his delicate feathers. A woman who has experienced that attack and/or violence firsthand has to be able to do a lot of work to come to the other side of it to feel free walking down the street safely, and even more so to be brave enough to talk about such controversial subjects in the public eye. So since I already know what the rules of the game are, I am in the process of deciding how I and when I want to play it, what I need to strengthen, and equipment I need to bring with me to make sure I come out of it victorious and intact.

[eeveelutionsforequality]

So everybody is politicizing everything and then berating everyone else for politicizing everything, but also berating everyone who's not doing/saying anything, but also berating anybody who is doing/saying anything by finding a way to make it the wrong thing. Comments sections are exhausting, news articles are exhausting, chatting with friends is becoming exhausting, tumblr is exhausting - everyone is at everyone else's throat.

Some people care but can't afford to donate and/or haven't found/decided where to donate to yet, some people donate, some people care by talking about what they think is the underlying cause, some people think that there's a different underlying cause, some people cope with humour or by avoiding things 'cause they don't have the mental capacity left to care about every single tragedy, given that pain and suffering are shoved down our throats 24/7 and everybody is telling us to care with all of our hearts about everything. We're all dealing with this in our own way, but so many people are redirecting their anger about the event at those who are dealing with it in a different way to them.

Politicizing these things pisses me off because I do believe that those involved, the families and friends, and frankly everyone else on Earth, deserves a little period to mourn, mull things over, decide how they think, distract themselves, etc, instead of diving into the conversation while still emotional, instead of keeping it on everybody's mind 24/7, instead of attaching someone's name to a message while their corpse is still warm. But honestly, I understand on some level why these people are politicizing it... it's because they care and they want to stop it happening again, not because they want to use the victims to forward their own narrative, but because they think their narrative is the way to make these people the last victims. So while I may disagree with their points, their methods, their timing, I try not to take the moral high ground or attribute malicious intent to them.

If somebody can't donate, can't do activism or doesn't want to talk about it, because they aren't able to for their mental health, physical health or financial well-being, they aren't obliged to put themselves at risk for strangers - in fact, even if they just don't want to do those things, that's within their rights. People have a limited amount of concentration, time, money, stamina... sometimes we have to put ourselves first, especially after an incident that involves strangers and that we can't change or prevent now. As for the jokes, yeah they can be insulting, but it's just some people's way of coping and their sense of humour, just unfollow them or politely tell them that you think it's insensitive - telling them that they deserve to die, well... how can you act like you care about strangers' deaths, how can you act like death disturbs you so much, while wishing death upon someone else? It's hypocritical.

Just... idk, everyone seems to be trying to put down everyone else's reactions, instead of thinking "Okay, why are they saying this/acting this way?"

Some people are going "My thoughts are with the Muslims who'll be victims of Islamophobia because of this", and initially it comes across as erasing the victims in favour of victimising themselves, but... I mean, if you're a Muslim and you see people, whether intentionally or otherwise, blaming Islam and Muslims for this, of course you're going to want to tell people not to blame all Muslims. You want to protect people, and you want to spread your own opinion of how the world works, and you want people to know that you and people like you don't support this and aren't like the man who did it - especially if people are claiming otherwise. They have a reason for saying what they're saying, even if it comes across as insensitive to you.

The people implying that all Muslims/Islam are to blame are sometimes doing so unintentionally through poor wording... because they're emotional. There are dead children. They're afraid and they're just desperate for any way to stop this. Sometimes they're doing it because their ideology and other people have told them that this is how the world works, that these people do these terrible things, and they just want to stop the terrible things from happening. They have a reason for saying what they're saying, again, even if it comes across as insensitive.

There are people saying that it's because of "toxic masculinity" and "an attack on women" - again, their ideology has left them thinking that it genuinely is, that this is how the world works, and they're trying to prevent it from happening again. They have a reason for saying what they're saying, even if it comes across as insensitive.

Ultimately, none of these people are going to be swayed away from how they're reacting, how they view this, who they attribute blame to, by you going "Stop politicizing this!" or "You're an idiot!" You need to understand where they're coming from and that they are - in their eyes - caring and trying to help, otherwise they're going to shrug off any criticism you have as you just not understanding the context that they see. You need to convince them that the context they're seeing it in isn't the only context, that maybe the world doesn't work that way, that maybe there's a better way to react - but you can't do that by berating them or degrading them, you have to communicate with them.

Everybody needs to stop yelling at each other, to stop using the fact that you think your way of dealing/caring is the right way to insult the other ways, and instead try to explain effectively why your way is good, why your context is right, and be open to at least listening to and understanding the reasoning for other contexts and opinions, even if you don't agree with those. Ultimately, debates aren't won by insulting the other side, they're won by convincing people of your side, by listening and discussing, not by parroting soundbites and catchphrases - well, maybe they can be won by sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalala", but they can't be productive.

Kids are dead. People are dead. People are in hospital. People are scared. The world is becoming a darker place each day, and technology is letting billions of glorified monkeys get exposed to horrors that our brains are still learning to comprehend... all while we battle with finally getting enough intelligence to understand what we are and questioning why, only to be met with the answer that there is no why following every experiment we try, that one day it will all end for us and we will cease to exist. The goop in our head isn't designed to care about seven billion people, it was meant to just try to survive, and now we can do that relatively easily and we've started to realize that there's no reason for us to. It's fucking dark in the world right now, okay? And in the face of all of this, we've all started coming up with our own thoughts and opinions about how to make the world good and kind, how to make everyone happy - that's what we all want, we all share that goal, we just disagree on the methods to get there. Some people think religion, some people think feminism, some people think anarchy, some people think communism, we're all just trying to create a utopia, to find that meaning and reason... and we're all getting set in our ways, in our "this is what is causing the badness and this is how we fix it", and finding enemies to fight and people to convert. Maybe, just maybe, someone other than you has a little nugget of brilliance in their plan that might work, but you won't find it unless you talk to them with an open mind. Just remember that we all want to live in a world that works, we just disagree sometimes on what the best kind of world is, on how we make that world, and on what's causing the problems that need to stop - people usually do activism because they want to make things right, so when you view everyone who opposes you as evil and stupid, you're not understanding who they are or why they're saying what they say.

If you ask me, kindness starts at the individual level and then works its way up. Take time to think about your words and the context of them - make the jokes amongst friends who'll get it, not in front of those who are uncomfortable with it. Donate if you can and, to those of you who've got even more extra money, please try to donate enough to make up for those who can't afford to. Please up the police presence at other upcoming events like Pride, to keep those most at risk of hatred safe. Please don't hate a whole demographic based on the actions of a few - whether that's Muslims, men, the mentally ill, or anyone. Please don't undermine people's legitimate fears about future attacks by saying "We just need to live with it" or "It's not as bad as [cancer/shootings/suicide/etc]", and instead work together to have a conversation about how to prevent these things, so that we can all see different outlooks and perspectives, so that we can find the combination that genuinely works. And above all, tell everyone you know that you love and value them, enjoy the little things, have a chocolate bar, cuddle a dog, and try to live as happily as you can - don't dwell on the terrible news or on internet fights, because we all die one day, you have a limited time to be happy so do everything you can to make the most of what you have.

~ Vape

[cassandrale179]

ON BOJACK HORSEMAN (2014)

Date: May 04, 2019  “It’s not about being happy, that is the thing. I’m just trying to get through each day. I can’t keep asking myself ‘Am I happy? ‘ It just makes me more miserable. I don’t know If I believe in it, real lasting happiness, All those perky, well-adjusted people you see in movies and TV shows ? I don’t think they exist.”

So I am not one who usually watched cartoons, not to mention binging an entire season of a cartoon series, but for some funny reasons I kinda stumbled upon Bojack Horseman, and finished the entire 12 episodes in 2 days. I really had to write down all my thoughts on all these episodes before I forgot what I felt about each one. So this isn’t a really a movie reviews, just random notes on the issues I like most of the show 

I. ORIGINS 

Bojack Horseman had got to be the most depressing cartoons I’ve ever watched in my life, and I am shocked by how gritty and realistic it is as a form of social commentary on broken people who tried to chase broken dreams in a broken society. That cycle of brokenness, that moment in life, that critical window between childhood and adulthood when one realized that his idealisms of the world begun to be torn down parts by parts, are one of my favorite themes of this show. 

“You want to know about my parents? They drank a lot. My father was a failed novelist. My mother was the heiress to the Sugarcube fortune and my dad resented her for it…”

And I think by willing to explore these harsh topics, while being unforgiving to its characters (the fact that even if one was dealt with the bad cards of the Universe doesn’t permit one to be an asshole and shirk the responsibilities of doing good to other human beings), really added a nuance to the topic. Though this is often disguised in the form of Bojack’s deniability of his issues. 

“Yeah I like that. I didn’t do anything wrong because we’re just all products of our environments, bouncing around like marbles in the game of Hungry Hungry Hippo that is our random and cruel universe.

II. DISTRACTIONS

There are a lot of of other themes being explored in the show, such as sensationalism, political correctness, the dark side of Hollywood …etc, but they were quite self-explanatory, so I won’t go too much details on those. However, one of my favorite got to be the attention span possessed in today’s society. Firstly, on the decline of literary consumption: 

Pinky: When was the last time you saw a book?  Bojack: I thought I saw someone reading one in the park the other day, but it turned out it was a takeout menu.

Secondly, the fact that every time a character becoming open, vulnerable, or reveal an opinion they hold about the world, they are being interrupted by some bullshit diversions or other characters who detract the audience away from the seriousness of it all, really drived home the point that originality and insight are often being ignored by the noise of superficial entertainment media. E.g, my two favorite scenes were Diane discussing her views on feminism, before being interrupted by Bojack:

“… But I do wonder as a third wave feminist if it’s even possible for women to reclaim their sexuality in this deeply entrenched patriarchal society, or if claiming to do so was just a lie we told ourselves so we can more comfortably cater to the male gaze.”

… and when Bojack was disagreeing on automatically labelling all American soldiers as heroes, before being interrupted by Mr. Peanutbutter.

“The troops are heroes, all of them. And I don’t believe saying that cheapens the word and actually disrespects those we mean to honor by turning real people into political pawns… Furthermore, I do not find it unbelievably appropriate that this conversation is taking place on reality television, a genre which thrives on chopping the complexities of our era into easily digestible chunks of empty catchphrases.”

Again, this constant intersection between daily, mundane activities chomping down on significant events really highlights how cruel and careless the world is 

III. EXISTENTIAL NIHILISM

I actually wrote this bit before stumbling on this amazing video here which explained much better about the existential nihilism that permeates the show, sprinkled with references from Pascal, Sartre, and Camus. What is the meaning of happiness? And what does it take to get there? I think these are central theme not just in Bojack Horseman, but also an existentialist dilemma that many philosophers have asked throughout the time of history. And I think it’s great that in this 21st century, we could still recreated the importance of this question in a colorful cartoon series. For Bojack, it was to be admired by everyone, I guess because he had lack love throughout his life, and needed to constantly feed his ego and insecurity to restore the guilt of him causing pain to other people in his life. For Princess Carolyn, it was work. For Diane, it was to move to L.A and make a difference with her writing. But at the end, is that truly what they want?

Well, That’s the problem with life, right? Either you know what you want, and then you don’t get what you want. Or you get what you want, and then you don’t know what you want

Ironically, the happiest of people are the seemingly dumbest, aka Mr. Peanutbutter, who realized disparity between the need for a purpose, as well as accepting that the universe bore no purpose, permitted him to live a truly carefree life. But to idealists like Bojack and Diane, who daily questioned their reason of existence, or as the French called it in a more fancy terms, raison d’etre, they constantly sank back into a state of ennui and depression. 

Another amazing article on Medium also explained the concept of the hedonistic treadmill. This term was first coined by psychologists Brickman and Campbell, who observed that humans quickly return to a stable baseline level of happiness despite the impact from major positive or negative life events (qtd. Shatwell). They are like hamsters on a broken treadmill, running in circles to try to add meanings to life without realizing that they will soon go back into the same rut. 

This theme from the show is what I personally identified with the most, as I realize I also had once stuck in this treadmill of achievements. I was not satisfied with performing average in my class, so I strived to achieve 4.0 GPA, but then I did not feel enough, I need to get into an Ivy League. And even when I did, I started to envy other Ivy Leaguers who achieved more in life (e.g Nobel Prize winners, award-winning writers, Olympic atheletes...etc.) before I realized that I am just stuck in this loop of achievement and disappointment. This was a wake up call that made me realize how unhealthy and obsessive I had become. Luckily I had not gone on a drug bender like Bojack, but I do feel like certain points in my life started to become self-destructive mentally and I needed to take a step back to realize how my perspective had deliberately and unconsciously nit-picked people who outperformed me so that I would feel bad about myself and pushed myself to achieve a goal. It took serious self reflection to realize the toxicity of when one pursue something just to justify their reason of existence and to boost their self esteem, not because they enjoy the process of attaining achievement. 

IV. HOPE 

Though Bojack is such a bleak show, I do like how many of its various characters still struggle to survive and fight against their own demons. And though many self-loathed themselves, like Bojack, they still paused to question the possibility to be vulnerable and accept changes. My two favorite scenes: one, Diane opening up about her childhood.  

My family made my life miserable, and then they never forgave me for leaving. The truth is, I used to sit alone on the hill out by the dump and dream of waking up as Chelsea Clinton, but with my hair.

Second, that heartbreaking dream hallucination sequence while Bojack was tripping drugs: imagining what would it had been if he had removed himself from Hollywood and settled down in Maine with a wife and a child of his own; sitting at that graveyard with his name above his greatest fear (die alone, remembered by no one); begging a figurine of Diane to tell him the answer to his life’s conundrum, and she replied with a seemingly profound quote, “You can’t forced love. All you can do is be good to the people in your life, and kept your hearts open”, but then charged him $5 to remind him that’s she is merely a puppet repeating what he wanted to hear. 

I mean am I just doomed to be the person that I am? The person in that book? I mean it’s not too late for me, is it? It’s not too late? Diane, I need you to tell me it’s not too late. I need you to tell me that I’m a good person. I know that I can be selfish and narcissistic and self­ destructive, but underneath all that, deep down, I’m a good person, and I need you to tell me that I’m good. Diane? Tell me, please, Diane.

I can’t stressed how great and realistic this cartoon TV show is, so I guess I will leave this review with one of my last favorite quote:

Closure is a made up thing by Steven Spielberg to sell movie tickets. It, like true love and the Munich Olympics, doesn’t exist in the real world. The only thing to do now is just to keep living forward.

[jameelajamilfan]

Press/Video: Jameela Jamil Is Shutting Up and Making Space in 2019

New Post has been published on https://jameelajamil.org/2019/02/01/press-video-jameela-jamil-is-shutting-up-and-making-space-in-2019/

Press/Video: Jameela Jamil Is Shutting Up and Making Space in 2019

The ‘Good Place’ actress and body positivity activist joins the #AerieREAL role model family.

If you’re familiar with Jameela Jamil’s, work you may know her for a few things: her role as the narcissistic but always well-intentioned Tahani Al-Jamil on NBC’s The Good Place; her fiercely vocal stance against photoshopping and airbrushing in advertisements and magazine covers; her news-making tweet in which she hoped certain celebrities “shit their pants in public” for hawking “detox teas” that promise to help with weight loss and bloating. In her 32 years on earth, the British actress has battled an eating disorder, hearing loss, and a car accident that broke her back. Yet she’s come out on the other side, starting a beloved life positive moment called “I, Weigh” and as of today, Jamil is one of the newest members of the #AerieREAL Role Model family for spring 2019. Ahead of the reveal, I phoned Jamil to discuss how the body positivity movement can change moving forward, why she wished Aerie existed when she was a teen, and why in 2019 she’s making space, not taking it.

When Aerie revealed you were going to join their campaign, it seemed like a match made in heaven. Why did you want to work with them?

I wanted to work with Aerie because they’re one of the only brands I’ve ever seen actually take inclusion seriously, and it’s not performative. It runs throughout the entire brand: their desire to reflect, on their website and in their stores, what we see outside in everyday life, which just never happens. Seeing people from all walks of life and all ages modeling underwear and modeling clothes was just such a breath of fresh air. When I walked into their store I realized how much I could’ve benefited from having a store like that and a company like that when I was younger, so I was very excited to be a part of it. Your body’s been through a lot, between an eating disorder and a serious car accident. How has that affected the way you treat your body now?

I treat my body with great respect now and I make sure to check in with it and thank it every so often. Because I’m aware of what it’s like to not be able to go to the toilet by myself, or to be able to breathe because I had asthma, or be able to hear, because I was deaf as a child. I also stopped menstruating when I had an eating disorder, so my body has been in jeopardy so many times that I’ve, frankly, by the age of thirty, a little bit late but better late than never, learned to treat it with lots of kindness and respect. I don’t talk shit to myself anymore. Every time it crops up I stick up for myself the way that I would for a friend or for a stranger even. The things that women say to themselves in their head, they would never tolerate being said to someone that they love. So I’ve decided to be my own best friend.

I’ve become the loudest voice that’s been allowed in body positivity and I think that has given some people the wrong idea.

How does being your best friend manifest itself?

I did EMDR therapy, which is a specific kind of therapy that removes the conditioning of irrational thought. So it goes right to the core of the problem. It’s very good for PTSD, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and OCD—all of which I had. Within a matter of months, it just sort of extracted the root of the problem, which meant that I didn’t have to deal with the symptoms anymore. So that was a big thing that I did. I also made the decision three years ago that most of my money that I would spend on corrective or beauty items I’d save up for therapy. I started doing that when I was 29, and that was probably the biggest act of self love I’ve ever done. So no cellulite cream, no stretch mark cream, nothing anti-aging, I just put all of my money into a piggy bank that I would’ve spent on must have products. I just did therapy and then bought myself some self love.

Body image and body positivity can be super personal. How do you discuss these topics without alienating people?

I link body positivity with mental health, which makes it a much bigger and broader conversation. I think that we don’t do that enough I think I’ve kind of moved it more into a life positive movement and more into mental health discussion, and I think we can all relate to that. Body positivity is something that we have to be very conscious of not leaving women who are of minorities out of. We need to include everyone, so I just make sure to be inclusive with my language and make sure that I’m involving activists from different minorities in my work and giving them a platform in order to make sure that everyone knows it’s a conversation for all of us to have.

For example, the MeToo movement got kind of taken over by a lot of very famous, slender, predominantly white, straight women actresses. I think it’s important not to let that happen with body positivity, which it does happen. Often, in the last year I’ve become the loudest voice that’s been allowed in body positivity and I think that has given some people the wrong idea: that I think that I speak for all people, which I don’t. It’s just that I have a platform and a privilege that allows me to be listened to and heard, when other people who are actually struggling with these things are being ignored. I’m not afraid of being annoying, I’m just afraid of being complicit in a problem that is systemically destroying the mental health of most of the women around the world.

So how do you deal with the criticism?

I don’t take it personally anymore, and I think I used to get defensive and when I would be called out for not being intersectional enough or just feel frustrated that people were expecting too much of me, but now I just shut up and I listen and I realize that there are people who are going through a lot and I would like to help those people, so I just focus on the good. I also don’t receive a lot of negativity or backlash. Most people support me and my profile growing in the way that it has, has been a sign of mass support of so many people who were just done, they feel the same way as me. I’m not on the wrong side here, I’m on the right side, the feminist side of mental health of young people and their well being internally and externally, of women and people everywhere.

The hashtag is #AerieReal. When do you feel you’re most real?

I feel I’m most real when I’m cuddling my boyfriend, I do [laughs]. I feel most real when I’m spooning. There are so many great role models. Who are some of your own role models in this space?

I mean, Samira Wiley is one of them, so I was super starstruck to meet her and to be photographed alongside her. That was a big seal of approval. Janet Mock is someone that I’m very, very obsessed with, and think that what she has done for our culture is just so extraordinary and she’ll be remembered forever and go down in history as such a game changer for the trans community. Roxanne Gay, I think she’s a real hero of mine, and her books have taught me so much and called me out so brilliantly. As in, in reading them I’ve been able to find my own mistakes and learn, via her, how to do better and be better.

I think we bring a lot of ego into activism and wokeness these days.

What did you learn from her books?

I’ve learned from her books about white feminism and how much we could leave people out of the conversation and what makes you a bad feminist and how you can call yourself out, and that that can be okay to make mistakes. You know, she calls herself out on her own blind spots, and I think that’s a really important thing to do. I think we bring a lot of ego into activism these days and ego into wokeness. I think that that can sometimes make you afraid of admitting when you don’t know something, and therefore you don’t ask, and therefore you don’t learn. Even someone as brilliant and accomplished and educated as Roxanne Gay, to sometimes owning up to her weaknesses or her blind spots, has been so inspiring so many people that I know, because it makes you feel like it’s okay to just keep learning and if you’re a bad feminist now, it doesn’t mean you’ll always be a bad feminist.

We’re having a lot of conversations in the office about the kind of energy that we’re bringing into 2019. How would you describe the energy you’re bringing into this year?

It’s make space, don’t take space. That’s the thing that I’m gonna bring into 2019, is making sure that I create space for other women. I create space for people from minorities, and people who are living in experiences that I have not myself had to live through. Recently I turned down a role of a deaf woman, because even though I used to be deaf as a child, I’m no longer completely deaf. And so that role should go to someone who still currently cannot hear because there’s a brilliant deaf actress out there somewhere who we don’t know her name, but she can’t get the role. I do think it’s really important to start to make sure that we stop being greedy and we just step aside for one another, and don’t fear each other. We’ve been taught to fear each other by men, and feel like there’s only space for one, and that’s a lie. That’s so that we don’t all join together and take up loads of space and become equal. So supporting other women, making sure that I put my money where my mouth is, and pass the mic.

Source: Elle

[shutdownld50-blog]

No Platform for Land: On Nick Land’s Racist Capitalism and a More General Problem

We invite the New Centre for Research and Practice, if they are to retain any credibility as a critical institution, to end their course taught by Nick Land (ongoing through March and April 2017). That students have paid for this course is not a problem they should be burdened with; a refund, whole or in part, would be the appropriate recompense.

 Nick Land promotes racism, in its eugenic, ethnonationalist, and cultural varieties, and yet he continues to be feted in art and theory scenes. As the crisis lurches into the Frog Twitter presidency, the New Centre for Research and Practice hosts Land for a suite of eight seminars; Urbanomic, the experimental small-press, announces a reprint of Fanged Noumena, the Land collection that hooked-in his philosophy fan club; and an academic conference is advertised, in terms all too flattering, on Land’s ‘ferocious but short-lived assault’.

 Is it that these institutions and projects are wittingly racist? No, they strike us more as Land’s ‘useful idiots’, enhancing the reputation, credibility, and reach of a far right racist while imagining his presence in their scenes furthers different agendas. Sure, they make the odd noise against his racism, when challenged, but it peeves them to do so, their hackles rise; racism is an irritant, the assumed radicalism of their projects seemingly absolving them of mundane responsibilities to investigate further, to reflect on their role, to cut Land loose. Instead, their cutting-edge philosophy morphs into liberal commonplace as they deflect opposition to the content and aims of Land’s racism and the means of its circulation and traction into abstract defense of the free play of ideas, of ‘reflect[ing] the landscape of contemporary thought’, of ‘working with controversial thinkers’. One wonders if this kind of philosophy reaches any point at which the content of an idea provokes critical opposition?

 It is suggested that lack of critical attention to Land’s racist scene allowed it to proliferate unchecked, that, as the New Centre puts it, ‘the political left’s dismissal of right accelerationism and neoreactionary thought [i.e. the Land camp] is one of the many reasons as to why we are seeing an unchallenged rise of fascism and white nationalism in Europe and North America’. Quite so, they are right to highlight this lapse of attention. Though they have missed the logical conclusion of their observation: that we should critically oppose all the means by which far right racists rise and gain credibility, including when the means locate themselves on ‘the left’ or within experimental philosophy.

 We are accused of not reading Land, of a failure to understand him, but the only defense we can see of those who are yet to cut loose from Land is that this failure of understanding lies with them. So let us clarify a little with some brief exposition of Land’s far right racism. We hope it will also be of use to others concerned about the spread of the far right under cover of esoteric philosophy.

 Nick Land advocates for racially based absolutist micro-states, where unregulated capitalism combines with genetic separation between global elites and the ‘refuse’ (his term) of the rest. It’s a eugenic philosophy of ‘hyper-racism’, as he describes it on the racist blog Alternative Right, or ‘Human Biodiversity’ (HBD). Here, class dominance and inequality are mapped onto, explained, and justified by tendencies for the elite to mate with each other and spawn a new species with an expanding IQ. Yes, this ‘hyper-racism’ is that daft – and would be laughed off as the fantasy of a neoliberal Dr Strangelove if it didn’t have leverage in this miserable climate of the ascendant far right. Regarding the other side, the domain of the ‘refuse’, Land uses euphemism to stand in for the white nationalist notion of a coming ‘white genocide’: ‘demographic engineering as an explicit policy objective’, ‘steady progress of population replacement’, is the racial threat he describes on the bleak webpages of The Daily Caller.

 It is claimed Land has a superior philosophy of capitalism (‘accelerationism’ – you’ve heard of it – the topic of his New Centre course). But like the Nazis before him, Land’s analysis of capitalism produces and is sustained by a pseudo-biological theory of eugenic difference and separation: the redemptive productive labour of well-bred Aryans, for one, the escalating IQ of an inward-mating economic elite for the other. There’s no ‘philosophy’ here to be separated from Land’s far right ‘politics’; the two are interleaved and co-constituting. ‘More Capitalism!’ has always been the essence of Land’s supposedly radical critique, from his early philosophy at the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) to now. Hence it’s little wonder that his philosophy is inseparable from the racism that has always accompanied capitalism as an integral dynamic – from chattel slavery and the blood-bath of colonial expansion, to the passive slaughter of migrants in the Mediterranean and Black populations at the hands of the police, their mundane exposure to death calibrated to the crisis of the labour form. Land’s oh so virulent assault on the ‘Human Security System’, as he framed it in CCRU days, thrilling those who thought him the transvaluation of all values, is revealed to be the latest in a long and monotonous line of tropes that would disqualify the life of particular humans – the working class, minorities, and other ‘refuse’. For hyper-racists can rest assured, the elite’s ‘Human Security System’ is to be bolstered, by capital accrual and the proliferation of hard micro-borders.

 That Land’s chosen people are internally homogeneous global classes of high ‘socio-economic status’ and not exclusively ‘white’ should not be the distraction he intends; the physical and psychological violence of racism has its own sorry architecture, but it has always closely partnered with the production and perpetuation of class privilege and pleasure. And inevitably, more traditional racist tropes of fear, hatred, and ridicule of Black people and Muslims, of ‘cucks’ (as the alt-right call those who would live without ‘race’ boundaries), feature with enough regularity in Land’s blog and Twitter (Outside in, @Outsideness, @UF_blog) that his ideas can merrily slop around on social media with the full gamut of racisms.

 Take an example, posted on the day Land gave his third seminar at the New Centre, as if to rub their noses in it. On 19 March he tweeted favourably to a rabidly racist blog that explained German crime rates as the result of the supposed innate propensities of ‘races’ (and not, as anyone with a critical philosophy of capital knows, a result of racism, insecurity, and poverty); ‘Blessings from the Maghreb’, Land captioned it, with a wit worthy of Nigel Farage. Another chimed in to this dreary taxonomy of racial types with the observation that the Chinese ‘are impeccably well behaved’, to which Land’s response: ‘90% of my racism is based on that fact’. Don’t be mistaken to think the latter is some kind of light-hearted humour, for Land adopts – and teaches his junior interlocutors by example – a calculated ambiguity to his racism, all the better to broaden the milieu within which his odious ideas can circulate unchallenged.

 Then there’s Land’s broader neoreactionary scene. For instance, he converses with Brett Stevens on Twitter as interlocutor, not opponent, and the two spoke as part of the ‘neoreaction conference’ (Stevens’ description) at LD50 in summer 2016. Stevens is a self-declared white nationalist whose ideas influenced Anders Breivik and who, in turn, praised Breivik’s murder of 77 people for, in Stevens’ eyes, being an attack on ‘leftists’: ‘I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I,’ Stevens wrote of Breivik. ‘[N]o comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream’.

 It is surely apparent from all this that any appeal from Land or his advocates to ‘free speech’ is a dissimulation, willed or accidental, that aides his efforts to extend the reach of his racism. It’s only those at the greatest remove from the violent impact of racism who don’t see that ‘free speech’ is repeated by the alt-right to such a degree – always front and centre in their profile – that it has become integral to their reproduction and dissemination. As ever, the art scene and liberal media have trouble seeing what’s right in front of their eyes. Look at Frieze’s recent effort, the magazine’s will to promote ‘free speech’ taking the form of a stacked ‘survey’ about the anti-racist shutdown of LD50, with an unbalance of three to one of those unable to fathom why it’s ill advised to give far right racists and their apologists a free pass through east London, the art world, and the university.

 It has been said that we should learn from Land’s purportedly well-honed critique of the cognitive ecosystem of ‘the left’, the rather limited view that those who would overcome the violence, exploitation, and tedium of capitalist society are all just whingers. But the readiness of people to be impressed by this point suggests they may already be on the slippery slope to the right. For it would take little effort to find a wealth of critical work from radical theory and practice – from feminism, post-colonial theory, anti-racism, queer theory, Marxism, critical theory, communism – on the limitations of our scenes. That has always been a feature of radical currents, the ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’, where ‘all’ includes the standpoints from which that critique is made (in contrast to the drab inviolate principles of the far right: bourgeois individuality, race, nation). Undoubtedly, this critical capacity needs honing. Sustained critical and experimental engagement with this conjuncture and our limitations is sorely wanted, for there is much worse in the world today than Nick Land. But part of that critique should be opposing the presence of Land and his ilk in experimental scenes, rejecting the idea that we have anything to learn from these narcissistic, racist identitarians – nothing except how they came to proliferate so unopposed.

 And that is a lesson for the future too. As the crisis deepens, we will be seeing more of these far right ideas disseminated under cover of ‘controversy’ and ‘free speech’; right wing ‘solutions’ camouflaged with leftist flavours; reactionary conservatism masquerading as techno-futurism; left wing scenes adopting right wing metaphysics; fantasies of social collapse arming the status quo, etc. Not that we’ll have to look too hard. Nick Land openly  declares his racism, and yet critical institutions continue to promote him. Can they ride out opposition to Land and sail again on philosophical waters untroubled by the realities of class exploitation and racism? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely. Instead, we invite them to ditch their positive association with Land, before their credibility is tested beyond repair.

 SDLD50

[lidopimientart]

My First Year at #TCAF

Best TCAF - The Toronto Comic Arts Festival moment (after that surprise Junot Diaz visit of course) was getting approached by Cartoon Network to discuss my ideas/pitch for a new show on their platform.

Worst TCAF moment (after being cursed out by the custodial for using the bathroom at the library at 5:05pm) was 'my location'.

*clears throat*

The third floor was great! I was grateful to be seated in the least crowded level, considering that it was my first year there, it made sense to be up there not surrounded by hundreds of people in a hot room for 8 hours straight. But it was the being seated in between a British publication(?) and a yt cartoon guy that made me feel a bit unsafe:uneasy:anxious.

Even though these individuals were quite nice and kept to themselves working hard like we all did, I could not help but feel the pressure of having to 'keep my voice down' and having to 'keep conversation short' with people who would visit to share a good time and talk about the themes in my work which (obvi) mainly revolve around decentering whiteness.

It was awkward every-time people left my table, after talking about intersectional feminism, sex, war, shaving all the hair from your vagina with the only purpose of taking and epic p***y pic, and of course, the recurrent 'yeah no....I dont know if there are any Indigenous artists here'...Was tough...You know it was 'awkward silence mode' whenever my people would leave the table, because the person sitting right next to me(on my left), again, quite nice and lovely, who makes work about "what would happen if baby jesus had super powers?" probably was thinking the same thing as me "who is this person? which planet did they come from?!! and why they sit us together?" 

 Like I don't even know who to feel bad for - me - for feeling the need to silence myself and tone myself down to make my white neighbors feel OK or rather non threatened by my presence/laughter/speaking in another language/subjects of my artwork...OR feel bad for the super baby Jesus guy who probably knew that apart from the weather and well...the weather, there was nothing else that we had in common that we could talk about in at least a meaningful way. 

Whenever things got less busy at our spot, it got super awkward and tense - and to add the cherry on top to that sour cake...to my right side, it was quite obvious that the constant "HI LIDO I LOVE YOU LET ME GIVE YOU A HUG" made my British neighbors irk because the hugs would happen much too close to their carefully arranged pile of super nice hardcover science fiction novels, like EVERYTIME A BUTT WOULD TOUCH THE CORNER OF THEIR TABLE WAS SO UNCONFORTABLE!! 

Again...how can you break the ice with your tabling neighbor when you were just speaking about 'holy shit white journalists are doing the most rn with that appropriation prize scam".........And dont get me wrong...I know I can only do my thing and worry about myself and all of that, but this really was a question about being confortable in my lane and in my own skin.

I have been tabling since I was 13 years old, so this is something I take seriously, so seriously that I waited 4 years to actually submit my work to this version of TCAF, because I know how every single cartoonist, publication, writer etc LIVES FOR THIS and I have learned (better late than never) to not take space from others far more ready and involved than me. I knew for this version of tcaf, I was ready, finally.

And I am not saying that I do not want to sit next to white folks, I am just saying that perhaps knowing before hand who you will be sitting next to (for a total of two full 8 hour days), would be super helpful. Like i was never really into blind dates you know?

The reason why Indigenous/trans/poc are significantly under represented at an event like TCAF is of course the (non)access to money. I live in TO, so spending 150-200 whatever on half a table is not so out of reach, but to many emerging/up and coming and future Indigenous cartoonists, thats a bit much! I wonder if there is a sliding scale artist fee designed specifically to cater to black trans womxn for example, also, I can think of at least 3 poc/two spirit/trans fols who are very talented but who simply wont make the trip to TCAF for the same reasons I was feeling a bit uneasy at my spot, only that like..multiply that experience times 1000! 

Shit! If womxn and women in general make less money than men, shouldnt we be paying a bit less than the men for a table at these art fair convention events? I mean, they get published significantly more than us gxrls so.........

Is there a grant available to Indigenous/trans/artists of colour that could help alleviate some of this financial stress? I mean, it was my first time at TCAF, and I probably missed so much of the behind the scenes that these issues might already be taking place or at least had started a thinking session or acting upon the issues that come with it, but from the surface and from what I experienced this weekend, the doing or the trying to do better was not quite evident - and 

please (of course) correct me if I am wrong in any of this. I am not friends with the the patricks and the deforges or the koyamas or D&QS or the gemmacorrels, you know I just do my own thing and feel blessed!

But I do know that zine culture, cartoons, posters, prints and such come from a his/herstory of punk and DIY culture, all products and work of black and indigenous resistance, of poor folks! So when I go to these conventions and I don't see me everywhere, I feel as though maybe it is not for me, and that is b u l l s h i t .....

PHEEWWWPPHH!! SO MANY FEELS!!!! Kudos for reading this far if you did! 

In the end, I still had a terrific time, and was able to make amazing connections. I feel inspired, motivated and above all, loved. Thank you for saying hi and for supporting my work, wether if you did in person or online! See you at the next hot mess! <3 

EDIT: Shoutout to Andrew at TCAF for helping me so much when I was super lost and confused, and also shoutout to the many volunteers who were super quick at hooking me up with info and anything else we needed. Shoutout to all the different people commenting on my hair, like cartoonists KNOW how to acknowledge the effort that takes to get two perfect buns together. 

With love and criticism,Yours Truly - Lido Pimienta 

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to Do Nothing: Jenny Odell's case for resisting "The Attention Economy"

Artist and writer Jenny Odell (previously) is justifiably beloved for her pieces and installations that make us consider the economics and meanings of garbage, weird markets, and other 21st century plagues; in her first book, How To Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy, Odell draws on art criticism, indigenous practices, "Deep Listening," anti-capitalist theory, and psychology to make the case that the internal chaos we feel is no accident: it's the result of someone's business-model, and until we reject "productivity" in favor of contemplation and deliberation, it will only get worse.

Odell's central thesis is hard to pin down; part of her subject-matter here is that really important ideas don't neatly distill down to short, punchy summaries or slogans -- instead, they occupy a kind of irreducible, liminal complexity that has to be lived as much as discussed.

With that in mind, the broad strokes of her book are that:

* The rise of "productivity" as a measure of the quality of life is incredibly destructive, and it obliterates everything inside and outside of us that make us happy, because sleep and love and laughter and beauty are not "productive."

Odell links this to neoliberal capitalism, and the requirement that each of be a hustling entrepreneur, which, in turn, is a way for capital to shift risk onto labor. It's a scam that moves both wealth and joy off of our balance sheets and onto the balance sheets of the super-rich.

This is very strong material, and it reminds me of the one conversation I had with David Allen, author of "Getting Things Done." Allen lamented that everyone pays close attention to the first two parts of his book (which focus on making sure that the stuff you decide to do get done) and skip over the third part (which focuses on deciding what to do).

* That doing "nothing" doesn't mean becoming a hermit: it requires more social engagement, not less

Odell builds on the idea that capitalism atomizes us and makes us stand alone and think about our relations to others in instrumental, individualistic terms; the reason social media is toxic isn't that it connects us with others, it's how it connects us with others. Doing "nothing" (that is, spending your time doing "meaningful," rather than "productive" things) requires that we find ways to genuinely interact with others.

This reminded me strongly of Patrick Ball's incredible essay on depression and suicide, and the reason that affluent white dudes are the most suicidal people in America today. Ball's thesis is that people who lack privilege must forge social relations with the people around them just to survive. If you have no money for a babysitter, you can substitute favors from friends.

"Favors from friends" are unreliable and nondeterministic, while spending cash with a sitter (or better, a service that has many interchangeable sitters) is extremely reliable. But if you keep substituting transactions for social networks, you'll eventually end up lonely and outside of any kind of social group that can form a resilient mesh for your inevitable problems: there's no one to put a hand on your shoulder, look you in the eyes, and say, "Are you all right? You seem to be in trouble."

Reading Ball's essay made me realize how much of a hermit I'd become, substituting work and transactions and "productivity" for friendship and connection, and how much of the anxiety and depression I was experiencing was the result of this isolation.

Social media is a great way to stay in touch with the people who matter to me, so that we can have offline, longer-form, important and meaningful interactions. But the commercial imperatives of social media work against that kind of socializing, because once you get together and start to have those contemplative and meaningful interactions, your social telephone starts ringing, because the algorithms that govern it notice that you're not paying attention to it anymore.

* That refusing to pay attention is an act with a long and honorable history

Odell traces the traditions of refusal from the ancient Greeks to avant-garde artists, and connects these to feminism and liberation struggles. This was fascinating context, and often very funny, and felt like something of a masterclass in understanding abstract art as well

* That cities have unique properties that make them hubs of resistance

The struggle against our reduction into productive workforce units, as opposed to thriving, contemplating, loving humans is the struggle against monoculture. Cities, with their diversity of people, backgrounds, incomes, social situations, and so on are the perfect place to resist monoculture. Places where strangers mix, like public transit, are hotbeds of resistance.

Odell also lauds "third places" here, the places that are outside the market, like libraries and parks, where your welcome is not dependent on your productive contributions, which ask nothing of you except that you be there.

And even as Odell is praising cities here, she's also working in a strong environmental message, connecting refusal to indigenous practices of attentive co-existence with the natural world, and connecting that to the complex idea of "bioregionalism," which involves identifying as a person whose place matters, whose views on the world and daily activities are influenced by the things that grow and thrive around you.

I've been around "bioregionalism" advocates for much of my life, and I admit I still struggle with some of the nuance of this idea, but Odell's connection feels right, and I really enjoyed the way she connected the beauty of cities -- which I love -- with an appreciation of, and connection to, the natural world.

* That technology isn't the problem, but rather, its economic and political context are what get us in trouble

This is the argument that puts Odell in the same group as some of my other favorite thinkers, like Leigh Phillips, Paul Mason, and Peter Frase.

Like the others, Odell doesn't argue the simple position that technology is neutral, but rather takes the position that technology's current decidedly partisan configuration is the result (and not the cause) of market ideology that demands growth, consumption and "engagement" instead of joy, meaning and peace.

It's an important point: Odell isn't telling us to stop using technology, but to use different technology in different ways.

There is so much to love about this book: Odell's discursive, interdisciplinary critique approaches an important and difficult question from many different angles, making it a chewy, provocative pleasure of a book.

But all that said, I'm looking forward to her next book. I know from my own work that what feels like irreducible complexity is often a lack of clarity. That is, just because you think you've made something as clear and simple as it can be, it doesn't mean you're right, it might just mean that you don't understand your own material well enough, and have not spent enough time trying to explain it to other people in order to learn what parts of it are important and which parts can be left to one side.

As much as I love this book, I also think that there is room to make it crisper, and some of that room will come from Odell gaining clarity as she tours with and discusses these ideas, and some of it will come from the rest of the world catching up with her -- when we started talking about online privacy, there was a lot of getting-up-to-speed that had to happen before the discussion could start. Today, the baseline of familiarity that others have with the ideas is much farther along, and so the discourse is more substantial and less about getting on the same page (this is also true of other complicated debates, including the contemporary critique of capitalism and concerns over climate change).

That's not to say that Odell has fallen into the trap of the masochistic longread ("because paying close attention to complicated ideas is a virtue, I will simply write this idea out in sprawling and undisciplined form, because the longer it is, the more virtue it has"). This book never bores. However, it does leave the reader with more feelings (which are good and important!) than clear articulation (also good and important!), and I think that Odell's continuing trailblazing will find a place where these two virtues are more in balance.

How To Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy [Jenny Odell/Melville House]

https://boingboing.net/2019/04/09/resisting-attention-economy.html