#but how he's understood in popular culture means this inclusion is important

[the-owl-tree]

the rat uh also tells the story of gandhi if that's any substantial measure of what animal castle wants to say about revolution.

[littlemixnet]

To me, a good ally is someone who is consistent in their efforts – there’s a difference between popping on a pride playlist or sprinkling yourself in rainbow glitter once a year and actually defending LGBT+ people against discrimination. It means showing my LGBT+ fans that I support them wholeheartedly and am making a conscious effort to educate myself, raise awareness and show up whenever they need me to. It would be wrong of me to benefit from the community as a musician without actually standing up and doing what I can to support. As someone in the public eye, it’s important to make sure your efforts are not performative or opportunistic. I’m always working on my allyship and am very much aware that I’ve still got a lot of unlearning and learning to do. There are too many what I call ‘dormant allies’, believing in equality but not really doing more than liking or reposting your LGBT+ mate’s content now and again. Imagine if that friend then saw you at the next march, or signing your name on the next petition fighting for their rights? Being an ally is also about making a conscious effort to use the right language and pronouns, and I recently read a book by Glennon Doyle who spoke of her annoyance and disappointment of those who come out and are met with ‘We love you…no matter what’. I’d never thought of that expression like that before and it really struck a chord with me. ‘No matter what’ suggests you are flawed. Being LGBT+ is not a flaw. Altering your language and being conscious of creating a more comfortable environment for your LGBT+ family and friends is a good start. Nobody is expecting you to suddenly know it all, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a perfect ally. I’m still very much learning. Even recently, after our Confetti music video I was confronted with the fact that although we made sure our video was incredibly inclusive, we hadn’t brought in any actual drag kings. Some were frustrated, and they had every right to be. You can have the right intentions and still fall short. As an open ally I should have thought about that, and I hadn’t, and for that I apologise. Since then I’ve been doing more research on drag king culture, because it’s definitely something I didn’t know enough about, whether that was because it isn’t as mainstream yet mixed with my own ignorance. But the point is we mess up, we apologise, we learn from it and we move forward with that knowledge. Don’t let the fear of f**king up scare you off. And make sure you are speaking alongside the community, not for the community. Growing up in a small Northern working-class town, some views were, and probably still are, quite ‘old fashioned’ and small-minded. I witnessed homophobia at an early age. It was a common thought particularly among men that it was wrong to be anything but heterosexual. I knew very early on I didn’t agree with this, but wasn’t educated or aware enough on how to combat it. I did a lot of performing arts growing up and within that space I had many LGBT+ (mainly gay) friends. I’ve been a beard many a time let me tell you! But it was infuriating to see friends not feel like they could truly be themselves. When I moved to London I felt incredibly lonely and like I didn’t fit in. It was my gay friends (mainly my friend and hairstylist, Aaron Carlo) who took me under their wing and into their world. Walking into those gay bars or events like Sink The Pink, it was probably the first time I felt like I was in a space where everyone in that room was celebrated exactly as they are. It was like walking into a magical wonderland. I got it. I clicked with everyone. My whole life I struggled with identity – being mixed race for me meant not feeling white enough, or black enough, or Arab enough. I was a ‘tomboy’ and very nerdy. I suppose on a personal level that maybe played a part in why I felt such a connection or understanding of why those spaces for the LGBT+ community are so important. One of the most obvious examples of first realising Little Mix was having an effect in the community was that I couldn’t enter a gay bar without hearing a Little Mix song and watching numerous people break out into full choreo from our videos! I spent the first few years of our career seeing this unfold and knowing the LGBT+ fan base were there, but it wasn’t until I got my own Instagram or started properly going through Twitter DMs that I realised a lot of our LGBT+ fans were reaching out to us on a daily basis saying how much our music meant to them. I received a message from a boy in the Middle East who hadn’t come out because in his country homosexuality is illegal. His partner tragically took their own life and he said our music not only helped him get through it, but gave him the courage to start a new life somewhere else where he could be out and proud. There are countless other stories like theirs, which kind of kickstarted me into being a better ally. Another standout moment would be when we performed in Dubai in 2019. We were told numerous times to ‘abide by the rules’, which meant not promoting anything LGBT+ or too female-empowering (cut to us serving a four-part harmony to Salute). In my mind, we either didn’t go or we’d go and make a point. When Secret Love Song came on, we performed it with the LGBT+ flag taking up the whole screen behind us. The crowd went wild, I could see fans crying and singing along in the audience and when we returned it was everywhere in the press. I saw so many positive tweets and messages from the community. It made laying in our hotel rooms s**tting ourselves that we’d get arrested that night more than worth it. It was through our fans and through my friends I realised I need to be doing more in my allyship. One of the first steps in this was meeting with the team at Stonewall to help with my ally education and discussing how I could be using my platform to help them and in turn the community. Right now, and during lockdown, I’d say my ally journey has been a lot of reading on LGBT+ history, donating to the right charities and raising awareness on current issues such as the conversion therapy ban and the fight for equality of trans lives. Stonewall is facing media attacks for its trans-inclusive strategies and there is an alarming amount of seemingly increasing transphobia in the UK today and we need to be doing more to stand with the trans community. Still, there is definitely a pressure I feel as someone in the public eye to constantly be saying and doing the right things, especially with cancel culture becoming more popular. I s**t myself before most interviews now, on edge that the interviewer might be waiting for me to ‘slip up’ or I might say something that can be misconstrued. Sometimes what can be well understood talking to a journalist or a friend doesn’t always translate as well written down, which has definitely happened to me before. There’ve been moments where I’ve (though well intentioned) said the wrong thing and had an army of Twitter warriors come at me. Don’t get me wrong, there are obviously more serious levels of f**king up that are worthy of a cancelling. But it was quite daunting to me to think that all of my previous allyship could be forgotten for not getting something right once. When that’s happened to me before I’ve scared myself into thinking I should STFU and not say anything, but I have to remember that I am human, I’m going to f**k up now and again and as long as I’m continuing to educate myself to do better next time then that’s OK. I’m never going to stop being an ally so I need to accept that there’ll be trickier moments along the way. I think that might be how some people may feel, like they’re scared to speak up as an ally in case they say the wrong thing and face backlash. Just apologise to the people who need to be apologised to, and show that you’re doing what you can to do better and continue the good fight. Don’t burden the community with your guilt. When it comes to the music industry, I’m definitely seeing a lot more LGBT+ artists come through and thrive, which is amazing. Labels, managements, distributors and so forth need to make sure they’re not just benefiting from LGBT+ artists but show they’re doing more to actually stand with them and create environments where those artists and their fans feel safe. A lot of feedback I see from the community when coming to our shows is that they’re in a space where they feel completely free and accepted, which I love. I get offered so many opportunities to do with LGBT+ based shows or deals and while it’s obviously flattering, I turn most of them down and suggest they give the gig to someone more worthy of that role. But really, I shouldn’t have to say that in the first place. The fee for any job I do take that feels right for me but has come in as part of the community goes to LGBT+ charities. That’s not me blowing smoke up my own arse, I just think the more of us and big companies that do that, the better. We need more artists, more visibility, more LGBT+ mainstream shows, more shows on LGBT+ history and more artists standing up as allies. We have huge platforms and such an influence on our fans – show them you’re standing by them. I’ve seen insanely talented LGBT+ artist friends in the industry who are only recently getting the credit they deserve. It’s amazing but it’s telling that it takes so long. It’s almost expected that it will be a tougher ride. We also need more understanding and action on the intersectionality between being LGBT+ and BAME. Racism exists in and out of the community and it would be great to see more and more companies in the industry doing more to combat that. The more we see these shows like Drag Race on our screens, the more we can celebrate difference. Ever since I was a little girl, my family would go to Benidorm and we’d watch these glamorous, hilarious Queens onstage; I was hooked. I grew up listening to and loving the big divas – Diana Ross (my fave), Cher, Shirley Bassey, and all the queens would emulate them. I was amazed at their big wigs, glittery overdrawn make-up and fabulous outfits. They were like big dolls. Most importantly, they were unapologetically whoever the f**k they wanted to be. As a shy girl who didn’t really understand why the world was telling me all the things I should be, I almost envied the queens but more than anything I adored them. Drag truly is an art form, and how incredible that every queen is different; there are so many different styles of drag and to me they symbolise courage and freedom of expression. Everything you envisioned your imaginary best friend to be, but it’s always been you. There’s a reason why the younger generation are loving shows like Drag Race. These kids can watch this show and not only be thoroughly entertained, but be inspired by these incredible people who are unapologetically themselves, sharing their touching stories and who create their own support systems and drag families around them. Now and again I think of when I’d see those Queens in Benidorm, and at the end they’d always sing I Am What I Am as they removed their wigs and smudged their make up off, and all the dads would be up on their feet cheering for them, some emotional, like they were proud. But that love would stop when they’d go back home, back to their conditioned life where toxic heteronormative behaviour is the status quo. Maybe if those same men saw drag culture on their screens they’d be more open to it becoming a part of their everyday life. I’ll never forget marching with Stonewall at Manchester Pride. I joined them as part of their young campaigners programme, and beforehand we sat and talked about allyship and all the young people there asked me questions while sharing some of their stories. We then began the march and I can’t explain the feeling and emotion watching these young people with so much passion, chanting and being cheered by the people they passed. All of these kids had their own personal struggles and stories but in this environment, they felt safe and completely proud to just be them. I knew the history of Pride and why we were marching, but it was something else seeing what Pride really means first hand. My advice for those who want to use their voice but aren’t sure how is, just do it hun. It’s really not a difficult task to stand up for communities that need you. Change can happen quicker with allyship.

Jade Thirlwall on the power, and pressures, of being an LGBT ally: ‘I’m gonna f**k up now and again’

[thevagueambition]

I wonder why Denmark was one of the first countries to be sympathetic to the gay perspective (in modern times)

like i could make a lot of statements about how Danish culture encourages open-mindedness as a virtue and that is true to some extent* and certainly part of the story, yet that still doesn’t tell us where that comes from. cultural attitudes have their origins in material conditions and public discourse. why did the Danish public in particular evolve to be reasonably casual about homosexuality at a comparatively early point in time? Why did it grow to value open-mindedness? (lots of aimless rambling under the cut)

If I were to speculate on material reasons,Copenhagen historically was not just the capital of Denmark but functionally of the entire region (eg this influenced how writing developed in all of Scandinavia) which, along with its status as a trade hub, might have granted it a more internationalist (and thus culturally permissive) point of view due to the different people making it through the city on a regular basis. I mean you certainly can’t discount the fact that Denmark has been a very affluent nation for a very long time either, which is largely due to trade. Where there is less economic despair there tends to be less “need” to find a minority to blame (although this did happen both with antisemitism in the early 19th century and homophobia in the early 20th, these were not nearly as violent as comparable occurrences elsewhere**)

Another thing is perhaps the proximity to the German-speaking sphere, both geographically and culturally, because so much of early sexology and gay advocacy happened in German (prior to WW2). Anyone with an academic education would be reading publications in German up until I’d guess WW2 so the arguments made in German were likely to be arguments known by the well-educated Danes (who of course were the ones to write legislation and the ones deciding how the healthcare system should approach the topic)

I suppose the way Danish culture approaches religiosity can’t be discarded as an important factor either, given that the argument against gay rights is often a religious one. Danish culture regards religion as an intensely private matter, much more so than the social one it is in many other cultures. I’m sure this can be partially attributed to extremely influential 19th century priest and poet NFS Grundtvig who did preach open-mindedness and a “happy” Christianity, with quotes such as “human first, Christian second” one might see how the popularity of his particular take on Christianity could develop into a culture where using religious arguments to disallow certain behavior is regarded as very backwards even by adherents of that religion. Although of course Grundtvig didn’t spring for the earth fully formed, he too is a result of how he grew up and what ideas he was introduced to, and the Danish public did not have to be as receptive to his ideas as it was

Anyway I suspect this is the sort of thing there isn’t really an answer to just more or less qualified guesswork. “Why do cultures evolve to be the way they are?” is a very difficult question to answer with any degree of certainty.

* To be clear, while Danish culture does value open-mindedness, open-mindedness should not be read as necessarily equating progressiveness in this context. Denmark is a progressive society in many ways too, sure, but the cultural open-mindedness includes open-mindedness towards bigoted perspectives. The attitude is “there needs to be room for everybody's opinion” which includes both the self-liberation of the oppressed and the mocking from the oppressor. Thus in saying Denmark was sympathetic to the gay perspective earlier than most other national cultures, this should specifically be understood as a tolerant attitude more so than an inclusive one. It’s not your business who Michael is fucking but it’s also not Michael’s business if you want to call every footballer you’re mildly annoyed with a homophobic slur.

** IIRC there were two antisemitic smear campaigns in the Danish papers in the first half of the 1800s which did in at least one of the cases result in some violence in the streets, but mostly against property rather than people (which is bad in and of itself of course, but I’m just saying that these weren’t pogroms).

As for the homophobic campaign, this was again a smear campaign in the papers and IIRC it ended in arrests of several gay men for sleeping with young male sex workers. There was also a moral panic about young male sex workers in the 1950s that ended in a law that made the age of consent for a male sex worker 21 (compared to, I think, 18 for female sex workers). Neither of these cases were mass violence either, though certainly violent in the sense of jailing people being a form of violence.

[lordeboy]

Cultural hegemony is a political struggle over how meaning is produced and legitimized to sustain rule, and the balances of power within culture. When Hall says “cultural hegemony” is “never a zero-sum game” he means the hegemonic narrative is never completely dominate, and the balance of power is always shifting. Hall wants to shift the dispositions of power to make space for more, conflicting identities to exist. Hall disagrees with essentialism in culture, seeing it to be limiting in how it definies things as absolutes, not allowing for ambiguity in meaning and truth. Black culture is not just one thing, just one perspective, and to understand it we need to create space for difference, letting there be conflict in how we think of and perceive culture. Only within this framework of thinking, in this logic of difference, can multiple conflicting narratives be seen.  

Historically, black culture has not had space to exist within the dominant hegemonic cultural perspective of the times. If we think of culture as a zero-sum game, this allows little room for black culture to be seen outside of how it is portrayed through the hegemonic lense of the time. Hall does not want to become trapped within the framework of thinking of culture as a zero-sum game, because that doesn’t allow for any different views to be seen and legitimized.  Hall doesn’t see that perspective as helpful when trying to make a difference and “shift the dispositions of power” (p. 376) as he says. Otherwise, viewing culture as all or nothing, where nothing is ever won or changed can create a cynical attitude, an outlook where there is no point in trying because nothing is ever changed. Hall isn’t trying to change the hegemonic view, but maneuver within it, making space for contradictions.

Hall doesn’t want black culture to be included as a part of the hegemonic culture as a sort of easy, representational victory but for it to exist separately on its own terms in its own narrative, not just a sort of inclusion onto the hegemonic one. To Hall, he writes “deformed, incorporated, and inauthentic are the forms in which black people and black communities and traditions appear and are represented in popular culture” (p. 378), expressing his view on how the hegemonic cultural narrative allows black culture to be seen. So to him, there isn’t a victory to be won in trying to influence the overarching hegemonic view. Instead, he finds power and meaning in creating contradictory space where there are more perspectives than just the dominating hegemonic one.

This is also important to him, because in being truthful and encompassing there will be contradiction. One perspective can never be the whole story, so to be accurate there needs to be space for more sides to be represented and heard. Hall says “by definition, black popular culture is a contradictory space...it can never be simplified or explained in terms of the simple binary oppositions that are used to map it out” (p. 378). Hall is saying that there is no point in trying to shift the hegemonic ideas because culture is not a struggle that can be won. Black culture is deep and rich and does not have just one side that can be illuminated to be seen truthfully. It exists in contradiction to itself, and does not have one right answer for which when seen, can be taken as the complete truth.

There is always a constant negotiation occuring, in the ways in which different forms of popular culture will appear and be shaped. Culture is dynamic and ever shifting, and there is a constant encoding and decoding of meaning transpiring. This means that the hegemonic cultural perspective of the time is always in flux, as the ways culture appears and is formed is also always in flux. To recognize culture as a zero-sum game is to acknowledge there is not a pure form to strive for, that can be reached. Hall insists this, saying “in black popular culture...there are no pure forms at all” (p. 379). Black popular culture appears in varying forms, which are always “impure, to some degree hybridized from a vernacular base” (p. 379). Therefor, the way black culture is seen hegemonically will always be inaccurate, burdened by the inaccurate and incomplete ways in which it is translated from the vernacular base.  

Significantly, when we recognize multiple things to be true at once, without forcing just one to be all encompassing we allow ourselves to operate within what Hall calls a “different logic of difference” (p. 380). This makes it possible to shift from thinking of something having to be either A or B, to something being able to be A and also B. Hall calls this mode of thinking “the logic of coupling rather than the logic of a binary opposition” (p. 380). This is important because since culture to not be a zero-sum game that can be explained by one hegemonic view, we need there to be varying forms that appear to encapsulate black culture.

One overlying hegemonic understanding cannot give an accurate understanding because it does not allow for the many sides that exist to have space to be seen.

Hall sees essentialization as something that fails to recognize the different ways meaning is decoded and understood, getting rid of ambiguity in meaning when there is ambiguity in everything. Essentialization “de-historicizes difference, mistaking what is historical and cultural for what is natural, biological, and genetic” (p. 380). It paints things in black and white, fixing meaning as something that is true regardless of context, and giving culture just one perspective in which is can be seen. This is not true, as black “is not a category of essence and, hence, this way of understanding the floating signifier in black popular culture now will not due” (p. 381). Hall is saying we cannot essentialize black culture and de-contextualize it, because that does not lend an accurate way in which it can begun to be understood and seen.

Hall calls for this different logic of difference to be held, because he sees it allowing for the many differing narratives and sides of black culture to have space where they can be seen, not believing it possible for just one “essentialized racial identity” to be reached that can portray all the different black experiences that exist. That one essentialized identity wouldn’t be authentic to Hall as it ignores difference within forms of popular culture. Hall says that popular culture is often, if not always “commodified and stereotyped” (p. 383) so it cannot be taken as an accurate portrayal and is not a place we can go to “find who we really are” and see “the truth of our experiences” (p. 382). Popular culture shows just a singular, dominate, hegemonic perspective that does not accurately convey black culture. In saying culture is not a zero-sum game Hall is showing how we can begin to understand cultural hegemony, why it leaves us with a lacking understanding of black popular culture, and how we can begin to create space where black popular culture can exist within the hegemonic perspective in contrast to it.

[polyrolemodels]

Mx Nillin

1. How long have you been polyamorous or been practicing polyamory?

Personally? Less than 5 years. I’ve been non-monogamous with my nesting partner, Falon, for about 4 years now, but neither of us explicitly identified as polyamorous until we started seeing our best friend Kate about a year ago. 

2. What does your relationship dynamic look like?

Falon and I are legally married and live together in a tiny apartment with a cat and two guinea pigs. We’re in a romantic, sexual, and emotional relationship with our best friend, Kate, who lives on her own a short drive across town.

Kate doesn’t want to ever get married or live with anybody else. She really values having her own place to herself and so do we, so, it just works out for everybody really well! We all see each other multiple times a week, binge watching Netflix shows, playing nerdy tabletop games, going on date nights, checking out local events, or trying out threesome positions for ourselves and then blogging about them [http://mxnillin.com/will-it-threesome-double-dip/] LOL

Though Fal, Kate, and I are in a closed polyamorous triad together, we’re all still non-monogamous to a degree. Each of us has a friend or two we sometimes share nudes and flirt with outside of our relationship, but the three of us are all romantically committed to each other.

3. What aspect of polyamory do you excel at?

Ugh, honestly, I wouldn’t say that I “excel” at anything so much as I’m just doing the best I can to look after my own health and wellness while also striving to be the best partner I can be to Kate and Falon.

I used to be REALLY bad at the whole self-care thing and it lead to a lot of fear, anxiety, insecurities, and jealousy in my past relationships. I almost exclusively relied on those who I was intimate with to just comfort me until I felt better. In some cases, I put the entire onus of my mental and emotional health onto my past partners. Unsurprisingly, that created some incredibly fucking unhealthy behaviors as I sought out a pretty constant supply of comfort, validation, and assurance from them in order for me to feel happy and secure in those relationships.

That’s not so much an issue for me anymore, and I’m really proud of that because it has taken a lot of hard work to unlearn those toxic behaviors, develop healthier personal habits, and overall better communicate with the people who I love. I’m also much more on top of taking my anti-depressant pills, and going in to see my counsellor, when necessary.

That’s not to say I’m some stoic, chill master of my emotions or anything. Insecurities still crop up, jealousy sometimes rears its head, and on occasion a little validation is appreciated, but I think all of that is pretty natural

4. What aspect of polyamory do you struggle with?

The stigma. Holy shit, the stigma

I‘ve never loved two people at the same time, and in the same ways, before. I’ve never been committed to two partners at once before. Like, it’s no exaggeration when I say that my relationship with Falon and Kate has shattered my entire perspective of life, love, family, the institution of marriage, identity, politics, and so much more.

And all for the better, I might add!

But polyamory isn’t something you see reflected back at you by society, especially not in any sort of positive, judgement-free way. It’s not a relationship structure that’s even sorta socially, politically, governmentally, or economically accepted, let alone widely acknowledged, talked about, written about, ore seen out in public. And it sure as shit isn’t represented in a lot in literature, or art, or media of any kind… at least not in ways that don’t tend to be fetishizing or tragic. 

I mean, when’s the last time you’ve seen any sort of show about an everyday non-binary queer navigating life with their poly family? Never? Yeah, me neither.

All of this has led to us having to pretty regularly endure super shitty, awkward situations of us having to be in the closet depending on who we’re interacting with at any given time. Trying to remember who you’re out to, and who is SAFE to be out to, is exhausting and stressful for us all.

And that fucking blows. Yet it’s oftentimes necessary for all our safety.

5. How do you address and/or overcome those struggles?

I talk about it with my partners. A lot. We check in with each other pretty often and we don’t let difficult discussions go undiscussed for long. 

And I write about it too! Maybe too much at times haha.

I find that by putting myself out there, speaking up about my experiences and relationships, it has helped me empower others in their poly relationships while offering me the opportunity to learn from them as well. Especially other sex bloggers, writers, and workers.

I’ve also surrounded myself with a pretty amazing little family of queer and trans folks who have been wonderful supports in my life.

6. In terms of risk-aware/safer sex, what do you and your partners do to protect one another?

Clear, concise, honest communication has been key. Fal, Kate, and I are all aware of each other’s past partners and we’ve all tested ourselves for STI’s. Currently, we’re all fluid-bonded together, so, condom usage isn’t really there like it used to be. However, we still make sure to boil any sex toys that are shared (between uses), keep our nails trimmed, use lube as needed, and generally make sure that we’re listening to and respecting each other’s boundaries.

7. What is the worst mistake you've ever made in your polyamorous history and how did you rebound from that? 

Not sure if this is really a polyamory mistake so much as it is a boundaries issue. A couple years ago, shortly after Falon and I were married, I had JUST started blogging about how non-monogamy worked for us when we became good friends with somebody we had met through our local LGBTQ+ community. Early on in the friendship, the three of us mutually masturbated together, but we were very explicit in expressing that we were not looking for a relationship of any kind and that the three-way ‘bating was just for fun and probably not a regular thing. 

End of story, right?

Not so much. While Fal and I felt that we were very clear, and that our friend had understood, he instead doubled down. Over the months that followed, he ended up inserting himself into our relationship in a lot of invasive ways that on their own looked innocent enough, but when considered all at once were actually quite manipulative. Then one day he tries to show up at our house to talk with Falon, and when they said they weren’t feeling comfortable taking right now (he was being very pushy) he just forced the conversation anyway by professing his love to them. Oh, and me too, but only as an afterthought when Falon made it clear they were NOT interested.

Things went downhill from there really fast as we started to realize the real degree of his intrusiveness, complete with finding out he had been self-sabotaging opportunities for himself because he had this thought in his head that we’d all live up living together.

Anyway, it’s a long story overall but Fal and I learned a lot about what we were and weren’t comfortable with and set even cleared boundaries with others. That whole thing was bad enough that it almost turned us off from non-monogamy and polyamory altogether though. Luckily, we worked through it because several months after that gong show things started up with Kate, which has been amazing!

8. What self-identities are important to you? How do you feel like polyamory intersects with or affects those identities?

I am a fat, queer, non-binary, loud, foul-mouthed sex blogger with hairy tits, a girl cock, and a full-on fetish for actively subverting social roles and expectations… so of course I’m also polyamorous haha. Seriously though, over the last several years I’ve radically transformed myself as a person, to better reflect who I’ve always been but didn’t feel safe or confident being until my late twenties. I had to, because if I didn’t I was on the fast track to self-destruction [but that’s another story entirely]. 

Now, for the first time ever, I feel empowered to live my life as my authentic self and it turns out that a big part of that has included being polyamorous. Monogamy, at least in how it exists in our culture, has always felt incredibly restrictive, uncomfortable, and toxic to me personally; whereas falling in love with Falon and Kate, opening myself up to them both and forming our queer little polycule, has felt like the most natural thing in the world to me since I came out as queer and trans.

(Bonus: Do you have any groups, projects, websites, blogs, etc. that you are involved with that you would like to promote?)

You can find the vast majority of my work on my blog at www.mxnillin.com. One of the most popular features there is "Mx Nillin Fucks", a blog post series in which I stick my girl cock in a wide variety of inanimate objects, mostly foods so far,  as makeshift masturbation sleeves and write about how good or bad it is. This year is themed "Back to Basics" and has focused on classic masturbation items (banana peels, socks, DIY penetrables, melons, etc.). Outside of this you can also find me regularly participating in #SexEdPornReviews tweets for The Crash Pad Series.

---

Support Inclusive Polyamorous Representation at  https://www.patreon.com/PolyRoleModels

[maybeshelives]

gay things up

We should acklowledge more often the importance of queer represantation in mainstream media. (For the right reasons)

Sure, I can binge watch all six seasons of the L Word - and, trust me, I have - but I still have this undying thirst to gay things up a little. I feel unbalanced occasionally, as if there are still parts of my sexuality I haven’t really addressed, understood and embraced, which consequently urges me to focus more on my gay side rather than my sexuality as a whole: my preferrences in the type of people I sleep with, the type of sexual relationships I form, the things I (dis)like in bed, you know, the list is endless. It makes me think that all these years of repressing my sexuality have made me keep it in a box and just narrow it down to the gender I’d rather have sexual encounters with, which is a rabbit hole itself, all things (gender norms and stereotypes, personal beliefs etc) considered, and just get elated even by the implication that two men or women on TV are queer; neither examining if I like them as people, nor caring about their chemstry or the quality of their relationship, no. 

Just keep my standards to the lowest point possible and MAKE IT GAY AS FUUUUUCK.

Being queer in a world of heteronormativity is sometimes a double-edged knife; even your best LGBTQ+ allies are ignorant of your reality. 

Yeah well, my straight friends support me on my same sex relationships. But they also don’t really get them most of the time. “What are you talking about?” you will asked surprised, “romantic relationships don’t differ based on the gender of the people involved. It’s the personalitites that matter”. 

Well, yes. But also no. 

My straight friends can’t really understand the consequenses of being closeted for years, the fear of stigma, the fact that even in 2019 there are still people wishing all of us “degenerates” a slow and painful death (just watch Ellen Page’s amazing show called “Gaycation”; during the Brazil episode, the two hosts interview a serial killer who specifically targets gay people, because he believes that they’re worse than animals and the world should be cleansed by their filthy presense).

There are several bagages following us around, issues that straight people (thankfully) never had to face, like the fear of flirting with the wrong person (especially while being closeted), the fact that our sexual orientation is often times not being taken seriously, the fact that for ages there was a very small amount of LGBTQ+ representation in media, and sometimes it was played out for laughs, or even blatantly killed off (lately, there’s also the issue of “queercoding”or “queerbating”, which is rather complex itself), the fear of violence used against us on the street just for holding hands with someone; being marginalized at any level, a minority, ANY KIND of minority, sucks. Because the majority doesn’t even see you, at times.

But we exist. This should be written in enormous neon letters, and not in 8-sized Arial Narrow ones, as it very often is right now. 

No, J. K. Rowlling, I don’t want to have to wear rainbow-coloured strap-ons covered in glitter (wink wink, Sense8) and do my YMCA dance in order to have the revelation that Albus Dumbledore is fucking gay back in 2007. It’s not on print, it’s only a few words said during a sold-out book reading. You had your moment of gay-friendly glory and inclusiveness, but that’s it. During an entire franchise with dosens of presumably heterosexual characters, the single outed person (and one of the most important for plot progression purposes, too) doesn’t even get to have their own moment of gayness. Not even in the prequel, apparently (if you’re new to this, please watch the videos on queercoding I’ve linked above and you’ll be right on track). And you have the audacity to keep on doing it.

No, I don’t want to fucking speculate if Captain Marvel is queer either. No, I don’t want to wonder if Thor: Ragnarok’s Valkyrie is indeed bisexual. (Fun fact: It is being speculated that the two aforementioned characters will hit it off in the new Avengers: Endgame movie). Or the two Teen Wolf guys. Or Dean and Michael from Supernatural. Or several characters from Riverdale. Ugh, it’s exhausting. 

And even though it might come off as just another lesbian who’s trying to make it all about her sexuality, shoving it in straight people’s faces, I have to say that heterosexual people are pretty ignorant regarding even their own sexuality from time to time. And that’s problematic for everyone. 

Please, let me explain.

Not fully exploring and “owning” one’s sexuality primarily means that they’re missing out experiences they could, in fact, enjoy A LOT. From having sexual partners of all genders to being the proud owner of the best buttplug collection in an entire city, a good sexual experience that never takes place is a missed opportunity. I personally wouldn’t like to miss out on that, like the dirty, dirty hedonist I am. 

This missing-outness, self-deception and ignorance can go on for years, decades even. Just simply ask popular YouTubers or my (formerly gold star lesbian) ex-girlfriend (yes, the opposite is also possible). 

But, such a personal issue becomes public when queerness and gender & sexuality spectrums are not even seen as something that can be part of anyone’s psyche, especially in the majority of the population. Hence the marginalizing. LGBTQ+ substance, accodring to many people, is something out of this world. 

That’s what makes queercoding so annoying. Because it sends off the message that LGBTQ+ characters, romances and storylines are not important enough to be portrayed as openly and clearly as their heteronormative counterparts; they’re pictured as something that will never fully grow and be explored, since it isn’t as significant. 

So,why does mainstream representation matter?

In a world soaked in and based onto heteronormativity and whiteness, being LGBTQ+ inclusive has been mislabeled as “pushing an agenda”, where even childhood is being used as a deterrent, a queerness-repellant, which can also breed internalized homophobia.

“Don’t publicly show pictures of faggots kissing, children might see them”. “Dykes shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children, because they [the children] won’t have the right role-models, I mean, who will be the mom and who will be the dad? Plus they will also be bullied by other children”.

I was watching an Ellen Page interview on Stephen Colbert that took place almost two months ago, and I couldn’t help but notice how emotional she still gets every time she talks about LGBTQ+ problems (she has been very vocal about them since she came out as gay in 2014). “This needs to fucking stop” she says. 

And, goodness, it does. When the, among others, argument that equality for everyone shouldn’t be debatable still is seen as “cringey activism” by some, it becomes more than apparent why representation of any minority in the mainstream media matters.

Pop culture is like a huge educator. We tend to internalize images shown to us from an early age, we learn to normalize toxic behaviors and worldviews in the exact same way, and even if we can’t really control anyone’s parenting (and homophobia and lack of understanding and acceptance, unless it becomes abusive for the minor, and this abuse is apparent to other adults), there’s still hope that pop culture can bring the bigger picture, all the vieriety of human identity and experience, into our homes. 

As I’m thinking about it, I realize that I had never seen a (happy) lesbian couple on television or movies until I was about fourteen or sixteen. Ever. Like, ever. Needless to say, I have my fair share of images depicting straight couples in multiple situations.

So, if you’re not a queer person, a trans person or a person of colour or someone with special needs or mentally ill, and you’re also not convinced by my long-ass rant, consider this: What if you had never ever seen someone like you in a film before until you were fifteen? Or what if you had only seen stereotypical images and expectations of people like you, as a side story to someone else’s bigger and more “important” story? A side story as seen and perceived by the heteronormative gaze?

Or maybe as a joke? A joke that wasn’t made by people like you, people who truly understand what it’s like being you and the actually funny aspects of your own identity and struggles.

Wouldn’t you grow up thinking that you’re a little bit of a monster?

"Like when someone says he wants to watch the world burn. You only get to watch when you have the privilege of not being on fire. It's edgy, but it's not The Darkness. The Darkness is finding a way to laugh about being on fire".  - Natalie Wynn

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

PS: I know that I’ve used too many embeded referrences, but if you’re interested in this topic, please take your time to examine them. They have broadened my horizons a lot, and gave me comfort and the validation that I’m not insane for feeling and seeing life that way.

[moodyvisualart]

An essay debating how effectively Basquiat comments and explores American history and culture within his artworks and why his work is as prominent as ever in 2019.

1970’s New York acted as a backdrop to Basquiat’s work, producing organic and often elementary observations of the world surrounding him. Initially he was spraying painting graffiti over the streets of Manhattan,  determined to catch the attention from the art scene that was so inaccessible, especially to a young homeless black man like himself. This cultural divide is what would be a staple in his carrier. Basquiat’s early work undeniably reveals his anti-establishment and anti-political stance as well as his sense of rage and displacement in society; the artists defining feature is his critique on American society. Both America’s past and its present issues are depicted, especially it’s treatment of people of colour. In this essay I am going to debate how effective he was in portraying these ideas in his artworks as well as exploring why these works are more popular than ever, 30 year after his premature death in 1988.

 Basquiat’s ‘Irony of Negro Policeman’ (1981) is a very personal piece that reveals the artists own individual opinions on American culture and its deep imbedded, institutionalised racism that would have effected Basquiat and the way he lived his life on the streets of New York. The painting is a direct critique of Basquiat’s own race in a very unsubtle and confrontational manner. The painting depicts a black police officer with the words “PAWN” and “IRONY” scribbled quite violently onto the canvas. Basquiat effectively was able to use his individual way of working to portray these ideas and meanings visually to his audience. One way in which he excels in doing this is using line. The mass of scribbles outlining and overlapping the figure create a skeletal overlay, observing the subject as someone who is  now dead or inhuman. It seems that by doing this the artist sees black police officers as ‘dead behind the eyes’, no longer feeling or understanding their role in American society. Moreover, the visual cage trapping the figures head quite unsubtly refers to these officers being controlled and manipulated. Basquiat saw black officers as ironic, the idea that black men were enforcing laws that were made to enslave themselves. The background is a harsh white, seemly to make the black figure seem threatened and out of place. The artist is referring to the white majority in America that seems to hold the power. The sad irony is that this work is just as socially important in 2019 as it was in 1981. The anger and resentment that he wanted to capture is still as present and helps to add more significance to this painting. This piece captures an emotion, an individuals anger rather than an event or a commentary on history. I view it more as a one sided opinion than a fleshed out debate on American culture, like some of this other slightly later works seem to be. However, it is undeniable that Basquiat managed to capture and document the African American community’s feelings of anger and fear towards law enforcement.

Whereas, ‘Obnoxious Liberals’ (1982) was more of a reflection of American history and the horrors that people of colour had to endure. As well as Basquiat’s own personal struggles with still feeling ‘enslaved’ within his own life. As well as social issues, this painting depicts a seres of characters that represent the system of capitalism and it's victims. A figure that has great significance is the black figure chained to a chapel with “SAMSON” written above his head.  “SAMSON” is a biblical figure from the old testament who was shorn of his dreadlocks and as a consequence lost his strength. The Philistines took him and chained him to their temple. He regained his strength, pulling down the temple killing the army but also himself. I do believe that Basquiat painted himself as Samson, referring to his fight for black culture, black artists and black rights. However, throughout his career he struggled with his place or seemly no place in society and in 1988 was found dead as a result of a cocaine overdose. Basquiat’s story is strikingly similar to that of Samson. This chained figure is a reflection on his place in the art world, often being underpaid and under appreciated by rich white art dealers who saw him as a way to make money and not to make political statements or push the inclusion of black voices into art history.   

The painting also depicts an American cowboy, a staple in American culture and capitalism. The figure has feathers placed in his hat, referencing to the genocide of the native Americans. To the left there is a figure that resembles Lincoln with the phrase “OBNOXIOUS LIBERALS” and a crown above. Basquiat used the crown to show respect for the late president and his role in abolishing slavery while still confronting the fact that he was apart of the system that still oppressed people of colour for years to come. The ‘NOT FOR SALE” could refer to both the slavery of black people as well as his own artistic integrity that was constantly undermined by mainstream white culture. Text and typography is a staple of his work, often creating aggressive delivery in his message. Basquiat believed that the messages he was conveying had to be understood that the meaning was just as important as the art itself. This is what makes his work so effective in relation to retelling the history of America from a person of colour’s point of view. Basquiat as an artist is unforgiving and unmistakable, seeming to ‘force’ the voice of a young black man into a world that still wasn’t ready to hear it. 

‘Obnoxious Liberals’ is undeniably inspired by Picasso’s ‘Guernica’. Picasso’s masterpiece was created as a response to the Nazi's bombing practice on Guernica during Spanish Civil War. The painting depicts the atrocities of war and the suffering of innocent civilians. Like Basquiat, Picasso in this piece uses figures to represent a group of people. The bull is said to represent the onslaught and oncoming wave of fascism into Western Europe. This painting is significantly important as it’s tour around the world brought the horrors of the Spanish Civil War into the public eye. This painting is effective in commenting on the bombing of Guernica as it undeniably creates an emotive response from the viewer. It feels like you can almost hear the screams of the people within the painting, the chaos and the destruction. Picasso will not let you escape the message of the horrors that were committed and the people who lost their lives.   

I do think Picasso was possibly was more effective in commenting on a historical moment, through removing colour to suggest a photographic recording of the bombing but also still retaining the emotional and narrative through abstract forms. Whereas, Basquiat focused more racism as an accumulation of stories and events in America, past and present and commented on the culture surrounding it, less focused on presenting an individual incident. 

Being able to view Basquiat’s exhibition in the Foundation Louie Vuitton was an incredible experience. To see the large and powerful works in person makes the message he conveys inescapable as well as the dark and often violent history of America. What Baquiat does best is making the often white viewers in ‘white main-stream’ galleries view history from a complete different view point, one that they may not fully understand. As a caucasian, while I have never experienced racism and discrimination, I felt not only the pain and anger radiating from the body of work but also the celebration of culture. So I can imagine how important this artist is to people of colour. As a result his work is as prominent as ever in present day and has cemented ‘Black America’ and their heritage into the Art History world forever.

[unpickingthetangles]

Influence Tag Game

I was tagged by the wonderful @fatal-blow!! Thank you so much for giving me a platform to be this pretentious! I am deeply ashamed of myself, ahaha!!! This turned out SOOOO LONG so I am going to link to the summary of Hadrian. 

Rules: Give a short summary of your WIP, name seven sources of influence on your story, and tag seven people.

Hadrian the Scholar summary. 

There are probably a billion mistakes in this. I didn’t proofread it because I am running late for work. FORGIVE ME. 

1.  When I was 18 I got an amazing opportunity to stay with my sister in Beijing for over four months. I didn’t speak a word of Chinese or Mandarin and I was still a ridiculous teenager. I had been sheltered as a kid; the farthest I had gone outside of the US was to Niagara Falls (which doesn’t really count, right?) I went from a spacious farmhouse to an apartment no bigger than a college dorm room that I shared with my sister, my brother-in-law, and my five year old nephew. I was able to experience another culture and a people so foreign to me that I had to adjust my whole way of thinking. Best part, it was at a very influential age, so many of these new feelings stuck to me like glue. I remember going to a wedding, walking through the city at 2am, climbing parts of the Great Wall that hadn’t been reconstructed.

Oh, let me tell you the moment that really got to me. We were stay at this little freckle of a village, very small, very old. It was settled in a green valley and the Great Wall wrapped around the hills everywhere you look. My sister and I followed this trail into the mountains and came to the wall, where local men were working on keeping it standing. I sat down with a very old man and he gave me a popsicle, drew a map of the US in the loose dirt, and gestured to it. He was asking “where are you from”. And somehow over about a half an hour, I talked to this old man without speech, sharing a moment of connection over a popsicle, with this grand old structure that will outlive us both in the background. This had to be one of the most profound moments of my life, really. It was my sister (for all her many, many faults) that suggested that I write. She liked the way I used language and the way I saw Beijing. That trip has been extremely influential to me.

That’s the wall on the mountain back there! 

2.  I also believe the concept of ‘J.K. Rowling Revisionism’ has played a huge part in how the story’s characters have greatly evolved. Despite how you might feel on the subject, I have taken the concept of it and used it to be more inclusive with my characters. I remember seeing a post on Tumblr years ago that was said, ‘What? Did Dumbledore have to be staking around Hogwarts in a rainbow flag for you? Did he need to be playing house music and raving the whole time?’ and it listed about a dozen more egregious gay stereotypes. As a queer person I was so insulted by that. It clicked for me that ‘it takes a single throwaway line to help identify a character as (x)’. I didn’t want to play it safe anymore. I didn’t want to write ‘subtext’ and instead was compelled to make it fully ‘text’. If I wanted to read about queer people in love, I should have the wherewithal to write it myself. But I also had to think of other people who needed representation as well. I know this is more of a popular discussion today, but five years ago it was rather new, and it changed the way I write.

(Let me be specific here: Lissy and I have had numerous conversations about Rowling Revisionism and if it was (broadly considering) ‘Fair’ to criticize her for it. It is an extremely complex conversation concerning the long-lasting effects of representation or lack thereof, in my opinion. That is why I am using the word ‘concept’ here, as in it should be more of a literary discussion had by creators and not a polarizing debate set in simple black and white tones. (looking forward to the many anons I get about how it isn’t black and white.))

3.  It is my belief that strong, believable characters far outweigh the plot or premise of a story. While the latter two are important, it is the characters that the reader is going to attach themselves to. A writer must introduce the idea of them as complex people in the world to get that special relationship the reader has with specific characters. The first thing I ask when I hand off my book to a beta is, “Who is your favorite character?” and I’ve gotten a different answer every time. That is a phenomenal thing! I am proud of that. When you look around fandoms, the fans are not drooling over the plots, they are defending characters and championing their causes.

With that being said, I’d say a major influence is in characters in media that made me rethink how I should approach writing characters. One of those would be the movie 12 Angry Men. If you haven’t watched it yet, I highly recommend it. This movie changed my goddamn life. Every single time I watch this movie, I find something new, something I missed the last 20 times I watched it. Hell, I watched it with Lissy once and she pointed out something so huge that I missed it. (ps. Still mad about that baby. How dare you be so clever?)

So how did that happen in a single-room mystery with 12 characters, none of which have names (save two at the very, very end) hit me so hard? How did this movie sink into me so deeply when it is mostly dialogue? I asked myself this over and over again. The answer is in the characters! At 1:10 into the film you are given a wide shot of the whole cast, a judge lazily prattling off his lines. Then the camera pans over the 12 Jurors: you see who is fidgeting, who is paying attention. Juror #5 looks off reflective of his decision to condemn a man to death, Juror #3 looks angry – why is he so angry? These are details that breathe an ever-expanding life into their characters. This whole cast is amazing, with Henry Fonda as #8 and Lee J. Cobb as #3. You know everything you need to know about them, without much backstory at all, without any grand declarations of their motivations. Hugely influential to me. It taught me that every character I write needs a strong introduction. If they are a weasel, they should be introduced as a weasel. If they are goodhearted, show an act of kindness. Hell, the first thing Hadrian does is show up at a funeral to mock the corpse. When he is introduced to Douglas’ character, he is dressed as a trickster god for a party. That tells you so much about him without putting exacting words to it.  

4.  While I had the meat of Hadrian the Scholar already planned out, it wasn’t until I read the works of KJ Charles that I really felt that I could be a writer and do it well. See, I’ve always been fond of those beautiful illusions like “my love for him was like a vein of gold in marble” (that’s from A Gentlemen’s Guide to Vice and Virtue, by-in-by). But I had no talent to write such pretty pretty words, not unless I work very hard at it, and even then it’s clumsy. KJ Charles doesn’t write in such a way. But what she does have is fantastic characters that react to situations in believable ways. She won’t be caught writing a character that doesn’t have his share of faults. As much as I loved A Gentle’s Guide because it is written in a style that I admire and love, it is Seditious Affair by KJ Charles that I reread the most. That’s because when I finished that book, I found that I missed the characters. It is also incidentally about two people who should be enemies because of their politics, yet they fall in love and fight for their partner’s beliefs, because they are important to their love. This basically sums it up. It really helped me think about Hadrian and Douglas’ relationship. Bless this author, seriously.

5. Waking Life is an indie film that is an interesting watch, though to me it hasn’t aged very well. However, it is this one brief segment that stuck with me most. Here is the full transcript:

Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration. And this is where I think language came from. I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival. Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that. Or "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that. But when it gets really interesting, I think, is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing. What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love? When I say "love," the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the other person's ear, travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain, you know, through their memories of love or lack of love, and they register what I'm saying and they say yes, they understand. But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're just symbols. They're dead, you know? And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable. And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we've connected, and we think that we're understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion. And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

It made me think about how language is used when it is applied to complex thoughts and ideas. I took a lot of what she says about language and tried to absorb it, pick it apart, and elaborate on with my own works. What I am doing when I am writing is a grand act of translation. How can I translate my own experiences with grief onto this scene, onto these characters? How can I best write love? Or anger? How can I tell a believable story of one character’s decades of emotional abuse? I am using my own life as this huge canvas of events and painting over it with different faces, different places, different heartbeats. And then I take that canvas and show it so someone else, who then will in turn see something entirely new. Language is inert! What a concept! Complex ideas must be first translated! This is a fantastic summary of how I view writing.

6. The painting In Bed, the Kiss, by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. 

What a gorgeous painting, showing such an intimate moment between two people. It’s invocative of a full, well-loved life shared in love. It becomes even more powerful to me when I remember that it is widely believed that Toulouse-Lautrec only had relations with prostitutes. He had a life of health problems, having broken both is legs that did not heal properly, he was also abnormally short. Because he couldn’t participate in sporting like his friends, he turned to painting. It was a life of indifference and difficultly. Yet, he made one of my favorite paintings for its depiction of the serenity that comes with intimacy.

In the same vein, it is believed that Van Gogh was colorblind. He created some of the most recognizable paintings in the world while he was mired in depression and lonesomeness. Monet’s distinct style towards the end of his career is believed to be caused by cataracts. So much of the beauty in the world has been brought to us because of friction, tension, pain, anger, grief, depression, illness, isolation--- all the things that are believed to make the world ugly place. And yet, it was these artist’s ‘impediments’ that made their work powerful--- unique. All of creation is frustration, as said above. I believe that’s true, and it is something I think of while I write. I’m dyslexic, I make many mistakes, my relationship with language is a weird one, but I never forget that it may be the one thing that sets my writing apart. Through the struggle, I will create. My sense of humor? Because of my shitty childhood. My characters? Because for most of my life I wanted to be someone else. My writing style? Because of a reading ‘disability’. Creation is in conflict! That’s some inspirational shit right there.

7.  Aaaand… Muppet Treasure Island.

Let’s see.. 

I will tag @queerloveandspaceships, @coveofmadness, @drderange and anyone else who wants to do it! I am sorry I am so fried after all of this. 

[bluebuzzmusic]

Les Moonves, chairman and president of CBS, accused of sexual misconduct by six women https://ift.tt/2OrzI8q

Les Moonves, the chairman, president, and CEO of CBS Corporation, has been accused of sexual misconduct by six women.

The allegations are detailed in a new article for The New Yorker penned by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow. (Farrow previously helped uncover the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations.)

The alleged incidents occurred over three decades, beginning in the 1980s through the late 2000s. The women said they did not come forward sooner over fear of retaliation from Moonves and CBS.

Of the six accusers, four put their names on record: Illena Douglas, an Emmy Award-winning actress known for roles in Six Feet Under, Cape Fear, and Goodfellas; screenwriter Janet Jones; Christine Peters, who produced the film How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days; and Dinah Kirgo, who won an Emmy as a writer on The Tracy Ulman Show. The two other accusers asked to remain anonymous, but are described as a popular actress on a long-running CBS program and a former child star.

Douglas, Jones, Peters, and the former CBS actress each shared stories in which Moonves made unwanted advances, including forcibly kissing, and then took retaliatory actions when he was rebuffed. Kirgo and the former child star said they rebuffed Moonves’ advances.

In a statement, Mooneves��acknowledged trying to kiss Douglas in 1996, but denied “any characterization of ‘sexual assault,’ intimidation, or retaliatory action.” Regarding the other allegations, Mooneves either denied them outright or said he had no recollection of the alleged events taking place.

“Throughout my time at CBS, we have promoted a culture of respect and opportunity for all employees, and have consistently found success elevating women to top executive positions across our company. I recognize that there were times decades ago when I may have made some women uncomfortable by making advances. Those were mistakes, and I regret them immensely. But I always understood and respected—and abided by the principle—that ‘no’ means ‘no,’ and I have never misused my position to harm or hinder anyone’s career. This is a time when we all are appropriately focused on how we help improve our society, and we at CBS are committed to being part of the solution.” According to CBS, there have been no misconduct claims and no settlements against Moonves during his twenty-four years at the network. A statement from the company said, “CBS is very mindful of all workplace issues and takes each report of misconduct very seriously. We do not believe, however, that the picture of our company created in The New Yorker represents a larger organization that does its best to treat its tens of thousands of employees with dignity and respect. We are seeing vigorous discourse in our country about equality, inclusion, and safety in the workplace, and CBS is committed to being part of the solution to those important issues.”

Farrow’s article goes on to detail how such behavior extended company-wide at CBS, noting several instances in which allegations were covered up; accused male employees were promoted; and female employees received settlements. Thirty current and former CBS employees spoke to Farrow for the story.

July 27, 2018 at 04:46PM

[aion-rsa]

How Do We (Maybe) Say Goodbye to Wynonna Earp?

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Everyone deserves love. If this ends up being Wynonna Earp‘s final legacy, then it’s a fitting one for a show that moved the needle on queer representation on TV and always had an immense degree of empathy for its characters, even and perhaps especially when those characters got things wrong. In a pop culture that still skews heavily towards glorifying performances of White, male stoicism, Wynonna Earp has always been unapologetic about granting its sloppy, sentimental characters grace.

Messy women don’t often get the benefit of the doubt in culture, popular or otherwise. We’re scorned, doubted, and belittled. Asked to stay quiet, to do the emotional labor for boys and men, and to give our own socialized performance of perfection while we do so. Wynonna Earp doesn’t just make space for the messiness of women; it revels in it. It celebrates it. It has fun with it. Too often, when discussing the need for better representation and inclusivity in our pop culture, we’re given a false binary: that something can either be “politically correct” or it can be fun. This is usually a bad faith argument. Just because something isn’t (fun) for you, doesn’t mean it isn’t (fun) for someone. Wynonna Earp has made its mark by understanding that just because something is pleasurable for women, doesn’t mean it isn’t important—in fact, in a culture and media that so rigidly polices women’s pleasure, that’s exactly why it’s important.

“Everyone deserves love,” Waverly tells silk-witch Brigitte in “Old Souls,” the maybe-finale (🤞) of the series and the definite finale of Season 4, and she may be talking about the murderous jilted bride, but she’s really talking about every character on this batshit wonderful show. Waverly has long been the heart of this series because she’s long been Wynonna’s heart—a manifestation of the goodness of the world Wynonna is tasked with protecting. In “Old Souls,” Waverly asks Wynonna to try to find that goodness in herself (you know, after they successfully murder the haunted wedding dress). Because how exhausting it must be to constantly fight to save a home that you believe you have no place in. “Do you want to go?” Waverly asks Wynonna about Doc’s invitation to travel the country together. “I want to protect you,” Wynonna replies.

If you’ve been socialized as a woman in this society, then odds are you are better at advocating for others than you are at advocating for yourself—you’re better at protecting others than you are at protecting yourself. We’ve seen the toll this mindset has taken on Wynonna, especially this past half-season. She’s bitter, and sad, and oh-so-tired. She’s lonely, too. She’s made a place for herself—alone—in her job as the heir, the protector, because she doesn’t think she has any right to ask for what she wants. No one ever taught her how. Waverly is there to remind Wynonna that she does have a right to ask for what she wants… if she only lets herself believe that she deserves it. So Wynonna stops fighting solely for other people, and she starts fighting for herself too. She lets herself believe that she deserves happiness (spurred on by the support of her loved ones), and she throws on her leather jacket, hops on the back of a motorcycle, and she goes to find it. Because, on Wynonna Earp, everyone deserves love—in whatever form(s) it may take—and that shouldn’t be as goddamn radical as it is, but here we are.

Rachel deserves love. She deserves the space to heal and thrive. She deserves to enjoy being a kid again, after losing her mother and having to fend for herself in a factory full of zombies. After being Nicole’s family for a hard year and a half, dressing in Wynonna’s clothes and trying to distract Nicole from looking towards the horizon for the woman she loves and lost. She deserves to go fishing with Nedley, and to take Billy along too, after fighting so damn hard to remind everyone else to save him. She deserves the chance to prove Wynonna wrong about Purgatory, and what kind of home it can be. She deserves to sing for her family, and to call it what it is: a gift.

Nedley deserves love. He deserves to see Nicole continue to grow into the role he left behind for her, and to walk her down the aisle—because just because he isn’t her biological parent doesn’t mean he isn’t her dad. Nedley deserves to binge-watch Pretty Little Liars and any other “guilty pleasure” TV show he damn well pleases (because it knows there is no such thing as a guilty pleasure—only the things that society tries to shame us for loving). He deserves to run Shorty’s for the business, sure, but really as an excuse to help take care of the town that takes care of him in return.

Jeremy deserves love, even if the show has not always known how to give it to him. (If there is one thing Wynonna Earp has consistently struggled with, it is finding space for its characters of color in a very White world and story.) He deserves a chance to run an institution like Black Badge with community and hope rather than hierarchy and violence (and to maybe find a deeper piece with what happened to Robin). After everything he has lost, I love that—just like Wynonna—when Jeremy meets someone he likes, he is still able to choose vulnerability.

Doc deserves love. He deserved the chance to turn from a cowboy into a cowman—because he took accountability for his actions and strove to be a better human. I love that Doc’s redemption has been found in loving and caring and nurturing (himself and others) rather than in the killing that got him thrown into a well to begin with. I love that this series never believed that, just because Doc was from long ago, he had to be filled with “period appropriate” hate. Instead, it believed that Doc would love as hard any anyone else, and that he would be the one to stand next to Waverly Earp at her wedding. Doc saw the goodness in Wynonna, even when she couldn’t see it in herself, and he also understood that the path to loving ourselves is one we must all take for ourselves. “Yes vengeance drove my thinking—kept my alive, gave me a purpose. But when it was dark and I was scared—and I have been scared for a long time, Wynonna—I mostly thought about love.”

Nicole deserves love. She deserves a chance to be chosen by the home she chose for herself again and again, something she has found with the Earps and in the sheriff’s office. Nicole deserves infinite peace and happiness, even if that isn’t really a thing. After 18 months losing hope, she deserves to wake up to it next to her every morning. She deserves to be at home with her wife, going on all of life’s adventures and holding her hand when the firelight grows dim.

Waverly deserves love, and she is that rare TV character who has almost always understood that. She is a superhero not because of her angel father, but because she has always found a way to be ferociously kind. Waverly Earp is Wynonna’s whole damn heart, and she kept it safe when her sister couldn’t, but that’s no way to live, and Waverly knows that too. “My biggest fear used to be that you’d never come back. That you’d never get to know the real me. But now I know you always will, Wynonna.” Waverly’s greatest wish came true when she got her sister back in the series pilot; everything that’s happened after that has been dreams she never even thought to wish for.

Wynonna deserves love. She deserves to be the hero of her own story. She deserves to ride off into the sunset with the man she loves, and her sister and best friend only a phone call away. She deserves to see the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and how Alice is doing. She deserves, finally, to travel light.

Everybody deserves love. We all deserve to see ourselves represented in the pop culture we love—and not just in sad subplots with tragic endings. (See, other TV shows, it’s actually quite easy not to bury your gays.) If this really is the end, then I think I will remember Wynonna Earp for the way it loves its characters and wants good things for them (even while putting them through tons of delicious angst and misery for narrative purposes). I will remember it for how it unapologetically believes that (queer) women deserve pleasure, deserve fun, deserve messy heroes, deserve love. It’s hard to believe this show has only had four seasons. Its legacy feels so much bigger than that.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Goodbye, Wynonna Earp. Until we meet again…

The post How Do We (Maybe) Say Goodbye to Wynonna Earp? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3dSqBLk

[edhayne]

Finding Our Religion — The gospel according to Hereford

[NB. This was written for Ogilvy & Mather’s ‘Get Out There’ initiative and was originally published in April, 2017]

The Church.

“The first great global brand.”

Wise words as ever from Sir John Hegarty. But is this another famous old institution that has lost its way in the UK? A global heavyweight lacking relevance in a country it used to dominate?

At a glance, you would say no.

Despite being an increasingly multicultural nation, 56% of the UK population state that they are “Christian” when asked their religion in the national census. A healthy number that no doubt keeps the global bosses happy.

However, this only tells half the story. Latest figures show that 1.4% of the UK population go to Church regularly. Are these statistics surprising? Perhaps not. But they certainly raise questions that the data alone cannot answer.

We therefore decided To Get Out There and explore what it now means to be considered a “Christian” country. Canterbury and York made the shortlist of prospective locations, but we settled upon Hereford, a cathedral city that attracts more weekly worshippers than anywhere else in the UK.

From casual chats on the streets to attending a Sunday Church service in a converted cinema, we met some fascinating people and learnt valuable lessons along the way.

The silent majority:

First up, we wanted to understand why people ticked the “Christian” box in the national census. For regular worshippers, the answer was obvious, but things got more interesting when we asked those that rarely set foot in a Church.

“I’m not sure what I believe, but I celebrate Christmas.”

“I was baptised when I was younger. I’m a Christian whether I like it or not.”

“It means I’m not a Muslim.”

Should the Church care about these varied reasons, or have they done their job by convincing over half of the UK population to tick the box? To use a football analogy, the Christian faith seem to attract a lot of fair-weather supporters — ‘fans’ that rarely come through the turnstiles, don’t watch the action on TV, but have a team when pushed for their allegiance. This might suggest that they have little in common. In fact, many of the people we spoke with shared traditional Christian values.

“I want my children to be generous, humble and respectful of others.”

“Telling the truth matters. I wish politicians would remember that.”

In a divided country with increasingly binary narratives, this was particularly refreshing to hear.

However, a more candid member of the clergy, outright questioned what these ‘passive observers’ actually bring to the Church. Perhaps naively, he pointed out that they’re not a source of revenue and their primary reasons for identifying as a ‘Christian’ were hardly positive.

The elusive youth market:

The same Vicar was equally outspoken about where the Church has been going wrong. Like so many 21st century brands, an inability to attract the next generation was cited as the biggest issue. This was a view shared by Church goers, box tickers and outright rejecters.

“Why should I be told what to do?”

“I’m not sure what the role of the Christianity is in modern life.”

These attitudes partly explain why Hereford has several Churches where the average age of the congregation is well over 70. However, unlike other parts of the UK, the city has had some success going after the youth market.

Our visit to The Freedom Church gave us amazing insight into the type work that has been undertaken.

Everything from the building, a converted cinema to the VIP welcome we received, made for a surreal Sunday morning. The service felt like a well-rehearsed Ted Talk, had the raucousness of a rowdy gig and the energy of a highly charged political rally. The congregation was vocal and passionate.

“You’re SO right Pastor.”

“Ay-men to that.”

The whole operation was more attune to a Silicon Valley start-up than a 2000-year-old global institution. Pastor Gary aka ‘Pastor G’ took on the role of Steve Jobs, but we also heard from a variety of other well-groomed individuals.

Consistently the focus was on what you can do as a Christian, rather than what you can’t. Extracts from the Bible were simply used as points of reference and the service was live streamed on the internet. The Crucifix ‘logo’ was nowhere to be seen and an array of artisan coffees fuelled the merriment. Their narrative was simple:

“Our vision is to connect anyone, anywhere to a life-changing relationship with Jesus.”

“We’re inclusive of all types of Christianity.”

“We practise a religion that’s for everyday life.”

It was impressively slick and had evidently struck a chord with a more youthful congregation. A chat with a member a few hours after the service summed up the pervading attitude of regular attendees.

“The Freedom Church is like a caring father. It guides me through everyday life without talking down to me.”

With all this positivity, we were keen to explore how this Church was perceived from ‘the outside’.

Tellingly, many hadn’t even heard of it. Those that had were dismissive and even viewed it with some contempt:

“A collection of happy clappy weirdoes.”

“Americanised nonsense.”

“They’re still ramming the religious message down your throat.”

With time a precious commodity, especially over a weekend, people cited the lack of a more mainstream middle ground as the biggest problem facing the Church.

“Why can’t the Church just be normal?”

“They always end up saying something that makes me feel awkward.”

“I’d rather watch Match of the Day with my kids on a Sunday morning.”

“To appeal to everyone we need something more in the middle (something between Freedom Church and more traditional services such as Church of England).”

Familiar franchisee problems:

Given the willingness of Hereford locals to openly discuss religion and their many shared values, perhaps it’s surprising that a more mainstream offering hasn’t surfaced. The city is awash with varied Christian places of worship and there’s a noticeable lack of other religious buildings.

One local was particularly proud to have “kept other religions out,” citing Judaism and Muslims as “the enemy.” An isolated opinion of course, but still alarming to hear.

On a more positive note, communication between some Hereford Churches has grown much stronger in recent years. Members of a Protestant congregation spoke of different Church communities sharing ideas and empowering each other to adapt.

“There’s far more that unites us than divides us”.

However, infighting, even between the same Christian sect, has proved to be a big barrier to reaching out beyond regular attendees. One Catholic worshipper even outright accused The Freedom Church of:

“Bastardising the Christian faith”.

Whilst people understood that constant meddling wasn’t the answer, the complete lack of a consistent message between Churches was cited as a major obstacle to more mainstream appeal. Furthermore, the calibre and training of some of the clergy was also called into a question.

Populating popular culture:

Throughout our visit it became clear that Herefordshire residents weren’t afraid to express an opinion. People’s views varied, but the conversation often centred upon upping the Church’s cultural relevance.

“Yoga and mindfulness are more popular than ever before. Going to Church isn’t that dissimilar. They’re missing a trick.”

“Why does the Royal Family dress so formally when they go to Church? They’re setting the wrong example.”

Above all else, people agreed that all Christian faiths needed to be far more open-minded and willing to re-think their messaging to tie in more closely to modern life.

Navigating the ecclesiastical boardroom:

We left Hereford with more questions than we answered. One weekend in the city was never going to be enough, but even a fleeting visit gave us valuable insight.

In particular, the trip revealed that there’s plenty that can be done to get more people actively involved in the Church.

So, what were the three biggest lessons?

1) You’re only as good as the experience you deliver on the front line — everyone rightly marvels at John Lewis’s creative work, but the experience at the point of sale is equally on point. Most of the people we spoke with in Hereford, including members of the clergy, felt that whilst freedom of expression was a good thing, a clear mission statement and some inspirational guidelines were equally important.

2) If you’re a global brand, fight powerfully for a UK relevant version of the brand narrative — letting the global bosses rule the roost is a huge barrier to attracting new customers.

3) Be clear about how any sub-brand launch complements the Master Brand — the Church has a brand architecture that’s become so complex, newcomers and those looking to re-engage don’t know where to start.

Evidently, the task for the Christian faith in the UK is huge and daunting, but many of the raw materials are in place. In a divided country, we found plenty of evidence to suggest that fundamental Christian values still matter to many people. Furthermore, how many other brands would love to have stunning buildings, big calendar events and array of charismatic employees in their armoury? Having 56% of the UK population on your books is handy too.

Challenge one is to make sense of these varied assets for a modern-day mass audience. Easier said than done. Challenge two is convincing those at the top to make some fundamental changes. That’s the really tricky part.

In fact, maybe it’s a brief for Sir John himself?

Listening to the people of a Hereford wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

[shooktim-blog]

Earlier this year, my partner and I took a slightly unusual trip. Spurred on by a TV documentary we watched by pure chance, we booked the cruiseferry highlighted on the show unsure of what we had gotten ourselves into. Sailing from Denmark to Iceland, via the Faroe Islands, and back, the week was fun, interesting and certainly an experience I’ll never forget. Today I want to share my experiences visiting the home country for the cruiseferry, the Faroe Islands. These small bits of land in the North Atlantic have become increasingly popular among travelers in recent years and I was excited for my first visit to this purportedly picturesque nation. I wasn’t disappointed; my time spent in the Faroe Islands was just as fascinating as I had hoped, which is why today I want to share what those experiences were really like.

Getting there – Smyril Line

A cruiseferry, including the ship on which I sailed – Norröna – combines features of both a traditional ferry service and a cruise ship. In this case the Norröna, which is operated by the Smyril Line, operates every week between Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and then back again. The schedule is always the same and it provides a very real service, especially to Faroese companies who need to ship goods to and from the islands. But it’s unlike any other ferry I’ve seen, because it’s also a fully functioning cruise ship. Able to accommodate more than 1,400 people, throughout the year tourists board the ship either as a simple conveyance or to enjoy a full week at sea, experiencing the North Atlantic in a very unusual way. This isn’t your typical cruise ship though, not even close. Leave behind those images of waterslides and enrichment activities, and instead replace it with a more bare bones version of the modern leisure cruise.

Two Chances in the Faroe Islands

One of the most surprising inclusions on our cruise were the incredible excursions at each port of call. Daylong, immersive and fun experiences were included in the price of our fare, and in the Faroe Islands that meant two different opportunities to explore this beautiful part of the world.

The first tour of the trip started in the capital city of Torshavn. The Vikings first established their island parliament here in the 9th century, and ever since this sleepy city has been the center of life on the Faroe Islands. Home to about half of the Islands’ 50,000 people, it’s not only the most important city in the Faroe Islands, it’s one of the most striking as well. Our local guide was a character, and his unique perspective on Torshavn and the entire country truly made the experience much more special than it might have otherwise been. Walking around the city center, he shared the history of the city, but also personal stories and remembrances of his long life there. I was a little surprised by how much I liked Torshavn, the small homes and turf-covered buildings all added to the other-worldliness of my time there. But it was only the start of a long day exploring this remote country.

After Torshavn, we boarded a bus to visit a small town along the coast, Kirkjubøur. This small village on the southwest coast of Streymoy offers a stunning view of two neighboring islands, Hestur and Koltur. In the Middle Ages it was home to the Faroese Episcopal See, making this unlikely spot the spiritual and cultural hub of the Faroe Islands. Today only a few buildings make up this historic spot, and we spent the rest of the day exploring not only the village, but the rocky coastline as well. Stave homes (including the world’s oldest inhabited wooden house) the ruins of an old cathedral and a modern church were the official highlights, but for me just being there was the real thrill. I’ve been traveling to Iceland for several years now and I experienced that same sense of wonder and adventure in the Faroe Islands as I do in Iceland. I love visiting remote spots around the world, but especially in the North Atlantic where the people are kind and the views incredible.

Following a two-day stop in Iceland, we sailed back towards Denmark and spent another day in the Faroe Islands. Rather than repeat the first excursion, a completely new experience was offered to the guests and I couldn’t wait for the day to start. The drive to the village of Gjogv was just as enjoyable as the visit itself. The geology and physical immensity of the Faroe Islands is unlike any other place I’ve been, and spending 45 minutes or so on the road admiring that harsh yet stunning scenery was as important a part of the day as anything else I did. But the highlight of course was the romantic town of Gjogv. A popular summer weekend spot for the Faroese, Gjogv is best known for its picturesque scenery dotted with colorful old homes and a natural harbor protected by a massive gorge, which is what the name Gjogv translates to in English.

After enjoying some cake at a local guesthouse, I went out to wander around the town, seeing what I could discover. While small, there’s a lot to love in Gjogv and I quickly found myself getting lost in its beauty, both man made and natural. I soon understood why it’s a popular getaway destination for locals, there’s just something undeniably special about this unlikely town on the edge of the world.

And that’s really what visiting the Faroe Islands felt like; experiencing life on the fringes. The country is remote and there are only a couple of different ways to get there, which means tourism has thankfully been slow to develop. While it has similar cultural and natural highlights to Iceland, not nearly as many people visit, which allows tourists like me the opportunity to see more of what really makes it tick. It was also just a fun experience, and in travel sometimes that’s enough.

Sailing around the North Atlantic aboard a cruiseferry was an unusual trip for me, but one I’m so thankful I booked. The experience was unlike any other and allowed me the unique opportunity to see parts of the North Atlantic not commonly admired, all from the very special vantage point of being on the water.

The post The Faroe Islands – My First Visit To This Remote Country appeared first on LandLopers.

[personata6980]

Reflections on “The Mirror”

I love Tarkovsky’s films for many reasons. His long takes canvas the images and environment of the landscape and allow for thorough inspection. His films always contain many references to popular artworks and thus serve as an excellent study for art enthusiasts and aspiring cinephiles alike. Every frame’s placement and aesthetic depiction is significant. Not a moment is wasted.

In The Mirror, just as in Ivan’s Childhood, we see the appearance of an art book which displays some reproductions of the works of Leonardo da Vinci. Da Vinci, who often considered the apex of high Renaissance, had a growing significance in Tarkovsky’s life. In addition to Robert Bresson, Johann Sebastian Bach, and Leo Tolstoy, he was one of the personalities who influenced him until his dying day. In the flashbacks to his youth, Alexei is displayed as a child who browses this particular art book; the partialities of someone else are indicated by inserted dried tree leaves, for instance at the studies towards ‘The Last Supper’.

Probably the most prominent role in the film is Da Vinci’s ‘Ginevra de’ Benci’, which was acquired by the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. and is therefore the only painting by Da Vinci in a collection outside of Europe. In his book, Tarkovsky describes the ambivalence of the impressionable impact of the portrait in his own urgent words as “inexpressibly beautiful and at the same time repulsive.” (Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cinema, Page 108). “This Portrait is needed in order to introduce a timeless element into the moments that are succeeding each other before our eyes, and at the same time to juxtapose the portrait with the heroine, to emphasise in her and the actress, Margarita Terekhova, the same capacity at once to enchant and to repel.” The lasting fascination lies in the fact that these very different moments cannot be taken separately. In the film, there is a moment when Johann Sebastian Bach’s recitavito “Und siehe da, der Vorhang im Tempel zerriss in zwei…” plays, presisely when the homecoming soldier and father is holding his son and daughter in his arms. In the Gospel According to Luke, the curtain (Vorhang) is meant to seperate the Holy from the Most Holy Place; thus, the Most Holy Place became visible to us.

This brings me to the conclusion that the film itself becomes the mirror; because the viewer does not accept the ambivalence for a continuance, one has to decide upon one’s own interpretation of the expression—thus, the film is intended to reflect one’s own reality. One gets the impression that Tarkovsky’s conception of art is dialectical in nature, which led him to violate the harsh limitations placed on visual art in the Soviet Union, which at the time restricted any imagery that contradicted Soviet foreign policy. He wanted his art to depict life as a whole without being subject to the conditions of the state. At last, Tarkovsky managed to retain this tendency against partiality inside the composition of his pictures. Perhaps that is why, to this day, Tarkovsky’s last film The Sacrifice, has often been interpreted as a plea for Nietzsche’s ‘Will to power’ or ‘Eternal recurrence.’ As it is written down in the Gospel According to John: “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” (1 Corinthians 11:31)

Another scene in the film is about the paramilitary training of young boys during the war at firing range. One of the boys, Asafiev, refuses to follow orders from the instructor. I believe that this boy might be a survivor of the Siege of Leningrad, which, alongside the Spanish Civil War and Mao’s attack on the Russians, is part and parcel of the structure of relationships between wife, husband, mother, father, and son. He succeeds in putting the instructor and his comrades in fear and distress by throwing the dummy of a hand grenade with intent to let them participate in his traumatic experiences. As the dummy rolls over the floorboards, everyone throws themselves to the ground. By trying to catch the grenade, the instructor loses his cap and some kind of protective plastic cover. Apparently, he is missing a piece of the cranial vault, and we see a throbbing pulsation beneath the scar covering his head. The cold and hard-hearted man suddenly appears vulnerable and defenseless. The general pity of which Tarkovsky occasionally spoke is revealed to us—for example, in the interview for Nostalghia: “I wanted to speak about that which is called ‘nostalgia,’ but I mean the word in its Russian sense, that is to say, a fatal disease. I wanted to show psychological traits typically Russian … The Russian term is difficult to translate: it could be compassion, but it’s even stronger than that. It’s identifying oneself with the suffering of another man, in a passionate way.”

Subsequently, we see this unfortunate boy in front of a Winter landscape vivified by people. This scene is often referred to the Brueghel painting ‘The Hunters in the Snow’, which had been shown in Solaris . Tarkovsky himself announced that he had sought the immediate proximity to Brueghel in this scene: “Again in The Mirror, take the shots of the episode with the military instructor. There are two or three that are clearly inspired by the paintings of Brueghel: the boy, the tiny figures of the people, the snow, the naked trees, the river in the distance. I constructed these shots very consciously. Almost deliberately. And not with the idea of stealing or to show how cultured I am, but to testify my love for Brueghel, my dependency on him, the profound mark that he has left in my life.” [1]

But I would like to emphasize another relationship that was important to Tarkovsky and which is less obvious. In one of his books, ‘Sculpting in Time’, he speaks of the many-figured pictures of the Venetian painter Vittore Carpaccio. As the special feature of his art, he emphasized the fact that each and every single person in them could be the subject of the whole image. Perhaps he saw something similar in Brueghel since this is exactly what seems to be happening in this scene: a sparrow takes flight and settles down on the boys head. This might be a poetic indication that he is meant to be remembered, and this also applies to a boy who seems to have refused everything in life. Utilizing the collage technique characteristic of this film, this scene is proximately surrounded by terrifying black and white images of world-historical significance: the corpse of Hitler, an awfully mimeographed bust of Mao, atomic clouds, et cetera. Apparently, it must be understood as the assertion that despite all these terrors, there is still enough attention for the individual.[2]

To me, The Mirror is Tarkovsky’s most personal achievement of Art, for it captures life how the artist remembers: a dreamlike, fragmented and often out of order tragic soliloquy. The brilliant inclusion of his father Arseny’s poems, my favorite of which is First Dates, serves to accentuate the poetic nature of the film. The Mirror is an existential Gesamtkunstwerk, a dialectical unity of life’s serene beauty and immense tragedy. While all of the characters experience melancholic lives, an overwhelming beauty pervades the film. Even with the majesty of the images, a subliminal sorrow always prevails. However, this is not to say the film is pessimistic. In fact, it transcends all dichotomies. In his words, “Artistic creation is by definition a denial of death.”

1. http://nostalghia.com/  Tarkovsky talks to Guerra, mainly on Stalker (1979). 2. “In one form or another all my films have made the point that people are not alone and abandoned in an empty universe, but are linked by countless threads with the past and the future; that as each person lives his life he forges a bond with the whole history of mankind..” (Sculpting in Time, Page 205).

[powerfultears-blog]

"Insight"

This morning I just heard a program on the radio about an author publishing a book titled "The Amnesia of America." He suggest that America has forgotten it's Christian principles etc. That made me think all the more about my last blog where I asked the sober question, "Has God Abandoned America?" I'm more than thankful that over the last ten years I have studied and read the works of men like Dr. Tony Evans, John Piper, John Bryson, Bryan Loritts, Charlie Dates, Crawford Loritts, John M. Perkins, Anthony J. Carter etc. These man along with the lives and histories of trailblazers like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela has done more by the sovereign will of God to shape my focus and thinking, to leave this world a better place to live in than the tragic year I was born in 1968!!!

I believe it was the prince of preachers Charles Spurgeon who said, "It is the responsibility of believers to ascertain carefully the true intent and meaning of Scripture, recognizing that proper application is binding on all generations. Yet the truth of Scripture stands in judgment of men; never do men stand in judgment of it."

In this blog, I will try to explain why i see hope for the future. Humans are inquisitive creatures, living in a world full of questions that demand answers. And nowhere are the questions as pronounced as they are in history. The study of history is a pursuit in the asking and answering of the good questions. The who, what, when, where, why, and how of history can be the source of understanding, enlightening, and resolution. For the study of history, as much as any other discipline, demands that we know who did what; when and where their actions took place; what resulted from their actions; why the outcome mattered to them; and how it can be relevant to us. This thirst for knowledge is particularly acute when we seek to understand history as the revelatory instrument of God and His character!!!

And the Bible is best understood when we ask the right questions and seek God to supply the right answers. Where was God in the Atlantic slave trade and the subsequent slavery that was perpetrated on the African brought to what we now know as the United States of America? How does Christianity triumph among a people oppressed in a so-called Christian society by so-called Christian society by so-called Christians? I am aware that these questions are like multifaceted diamonds and can be approached from a variety of angles. I am hopeful, however that I can give some answers, as well as some challenges, to the questions that have plagued me and many like me.

We have to think critically, clearly, contextually, and compassionately. We need a sound, biblical black theological perspective because an unsound, unbiblical black theological perspective is the alternative. A large part of Christianity namely, those of African American descent, believes the truth claims of God, Christ, and the Scriptures, but feels that the larger body of Christian theology has ignored their cultural context and circumstances. A theological perspective that fails to speak contextually to African American life, whether orthodox or liberal, will not gain a hearing among people who have become skeptical of the establishment. The liberation theology that spawned the black theology of the sixties gained recognition and a measure of popularity not because it was biblically accurate, but because it sought to contextualize the gospel message to people who were being oppressed, marginalized, and disenfranchised.

During the socially turbulent fifties and sixties, America was forced to grapple with her own identity and how she was going to respond to the outcries of her disenfranchised. The voice that played the lead of those who yearned to be free and equal was the black voice. The black voice cried for justice, equality, and self-determination. It demanded an equal voice in the political and economic system. It demanded that this inclusion be brought about by any means necessary. The means of choice came to be known broadly as Black Power!!!

The phrase "Black Power" expressed the social and political struggle of Black America. It was Black because blackness was no longer viewed as a liability but rather as an asset. Out of this change arose the expression "I'm Black and I'm Proud." It was power because because blacks were historically castigated and their voice in society rendered impotent. Now, authority and power were not just requested, but demanded, and where not granted, taken. But because Black Power was a socioeconomic movement, it did not give power to the whole person!!!

Something was lacking in the soul of black empowerment. Black theology developed in an attempt to fill that gap. Black theology sought to give a spiritual and theological framework to the pressing and distressing blight of black Americans during that turbulent period. Where as Black Power was the political expression of self-determination among black Americans, black theology became the theological expression of Black Power. Ironically, black theology's intent may have been noble, but it's articulation and subsequent outcome has been less than noble. In fact, it has been theologically and biblically unacceptable. Yet, without a solidly biblical voice setting African American experience in a consistently redemptive and historical context, the black theology of the sixties and the subsequent ideologies based on it are the only alternatives.

To deny African Americans the right to formulate and sustain a biblical theology that speaks to the cultural and religious experience of African Americans is to deny them the privilege that other ethnic groups have enjoyed. An African American perspective on theology comes more as a reaction than as a theological initiative. It has been made necessary by conservative Christians' failure to grapple with issues of African American history and consciousness. this is particularly evident in the areas of racism and discrimination. Very few have sought to positively set forth God and His providential hand in the life and struggle of African Americans.

My dear friends please join with me as we empower our people with the ability to overcome all that have held us back. Most important we must recognize our biases and the impact of our experiences, we can become more capable and insightful teachers. The Holy Spirit can use our experiences in our interpretation of Scripture in a very effective way. The Scriptures are clear. God does not simply know all things, as most Christians would suggest, but more accurately he has decreed all things!!! In other words, God is not an impotent deity who must wait for His creatures to act in order for His purposes to be accomplished. Rather, His creatures act according to His divine decree, and nothing occurs in all of creation that is not in accord with His ultimate will. We were called for such a time as this!!! I'm still living because of His mercy and grace... I know all to well about being, "totally encouraged after rehabilitating self." There is a difference between an excuse and an example... Today more than ever, Christians everywhere throughout this land have the ability to make this world a better world... If God would grant us mercy and the generations that come behind are to be better prepared, than we must come to grips with the past and move forward in true unity... I'm most thankful for my wilderness wandering experiences, it's now time to inherit the promise land!!!!

Thank you, J.P.

[youthincare]

The following article is a tentative attempt to combine communist theory with the insights of disability activists and theorists in order to promote revolutionary approaches to understanding and overcoming the oppression of disabled people.

Communism: The real movement to abolish disability

The dominant ideas of the ruling class are the dominant ideas of the age. As revolutionaries we know this and must constantly be alert to the ways in which they influence and limit our own conception of how things are and where they might go. We are alert to the fact that in our popular culture it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. In the revolutionary milieu we reject -with varying degrees of success- the universality of wage labour, the state, the nuclear family and so on. In the piece I want to focus on an area most revolutionaries never bring into their analysis of political economy: disability. Disability, I will argue, is a feature of present day social relations, that it is specific to capitalism, that it will not go away as long as capitalism persists and finally that communism presents the answer to the problem of disability. In doing so I locate disability firmly in ‘the present state of things’ that Marx argued communists must seek to abolish.

What is disability?

Disability as it is commonly tacitly understood as the category we use to group together people whose bodies or minds are in some way defective. We have a certain conception of how bodies and minds ought to be, and people who deviate too much from that template we call disabled. Disability is usually thought of in terms of what people are not able to do: seeing, concentrating, walking, communicating and so on. Disabled people cannot do some important thing. Their ability to function is impaired.

This conception of disability makes two important assumptions. First, it assumes that there is some ‘natural’ set of characteristics that non-defective people have, deviation from which we can call disability. Second, it assumes that society is, in some universal sense, a place where for a person to be living optimally they must be able to do all the things that the non-disabled reification Template Man (and he is a man) can do and that people who can’t present some sort of problem needing to be, by turns, managed, cared for and ignored. But where do these assumptions come from?

Template Man is an elusive figure. He is usually only visible by inspecting his opposite. By seeing that a deaf person can’t hear and that a person with fatigue needs to sleep 11 hours a night, we know that Template Man can hear and sleeps eight hours a night. But quite why Template Man must be able to hear, we can’t say. These two features of Template Man are fairly universal throughout the capitalist world. But others are much more variable. For example in some parts of the world Template Man finds that meeting new people and moving jobs and houses comes easily to him. We know this because by examining pathologies such as social anxiety disorder, which are in part characterised by not being able to do these things, we know that Template Man can do these things. But in other parts of the world no such pathologies are apparent and Template Man neither has nor does not have these characteristics.

So where is the key to this strange metaphysical entity defined only through deviations from him? Template Man is, of course, the ideal worker as defined by the needs of capital at any given moment and in any given place. Template man is negatively defined precisely because capital has no interest in nature of individual workers, or workers as individuals. Workers must be able to do certain things for certain periods of time. Everything else about them is irrelevant to the needs of capital. Workers must be able to sell their labour according to the needs of a large enough segment of the employing class that they can fulfil their role as commodities on the labour market. Workers must also be able to ‘reproduce’ (feed, rest, clean, relax, etc.) themselves for the cost of the wages they can command and in the time they are not having to sell their ability to work. Workers also need to take part in the purchasing of commodities capitalism uses to reproduce itself, from housing to entertainment to insurance. Bodies and minds which are not well adjusted to the tasks involved in carrying out these functions are disabled. They are at odds with the demands of capital in that place and time. To illustrate using the final example from the paragraph above, social anxiety stands in the way of the sale of labour power in Britain today since capital demands we be able to move around quickly and easily in order to do so and the content of much work in many industries involved interacting in a ‘friendly’ manner with strangers. There are plenty of communities in the world where almost none of the wage labour involves these things, and in these communities there is also no need for the idea of social anxiety disorder, and this is reflected in medical practice. You can't get a social anxiety disorder diagnosis in most of China, for instance (thought this may not last). To give another example, the explosion in Britain of diagnoses of specific learning disorders, such as dyslexia, has gone hand in hand with rising demand for more literate, numerate workers and the increased difficulty workers have reproducing themselves outside of work without these skills.

We should also notice another implication of the fact that Template Man is negatively defined. Being able to do things well, or do things most people can’t, has nothing to do with disability. Disability is about what a person cannot do, not about what they can. The implications of this are quite important, as we will see later when we examine the first half of the dictum ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

The failure of reformism

In the reformist notion of disability the problem of disability is a problem of inclusion. The basic category ‘disabled’ is taken as given (or natural), and the task of the reformer is to win changes in the institutions, buildings, etc. that disabled people want to use so that they can start to approach the level of access to things that non-disabled people have. In the technical jargon of the movement ‘reasonable adjustments’ should be made so that a person’s impairment (a characteristic such as chronic illness, autism, down’s syndrome or whatever) does not stop them accessing things as easily as people who do not have impairments. The extent to which they cannot access these things on an equitable basis is the extent to which they are disabled according to this view.

As usual, the revolutionary examining the reformists’ approach has a great deal of sympathy for their goals, but also sees the forces that contradict the aims of the reformists, and which will, at a certain point, overpower them. Our aim is to remove such forces, not fight an interminable battle against them. If, as we have seen, disabled people are people who, as a group, cannot be easily integrated into the logic of capital then there is only so far they can go towards equality before capital starts to push them back.

Of course, the reformist approach will win victories. Indeed, they will often appeal to the smooth functioning of capital in order to do so. For example, in the UK a program called ‘access to work’ has helped disabled people get jobs by funding equipment, building alterations and so on which mean that the labour power of particular disabled people is raised in value so it can compete in the labour market with that of non-disabled people. To give a simple illustration of how this works, there is no point in a company hiring a wheel chair user if their building cannot be accessed by them, and there’s no point splashing out on ramps if a similar worker can be hired instead, but if the state pays for the ramps, then the wheelchair user represents good value to the employer in the labour market. The state wins in this deal too, since through access to work it shifts people off of benefits and into work, and the scheme payed for itself through the tax revenue of the disabled people it got into employment alone. However, when there is a glut of unemployed labour and when the state is cutting benefits for disabled people anyway, the logic of the scheme breaks down since non-disabled people are there to do the jobs without the state expending money, and disabled people are ‘costing’ the state less anyway. Given that those are the conditions we are now living in, access to work is being scrapped.

We should not, of course, deny the important role of disabled people in winning concessions from the state. The dynamic is not simply one of the state managing disabled people so as to maximise profits for bosses. Disabled people, like the working class in general, struggle and win concessions and in doing so alter the operation of capitalism. But when these concessions start to get in the way of the functioning of capital, it becomes extremely difficult to defend them. In times like this, when the conditions of the entire working class are under attack, it should come as no surprise that those sectors of the working class who are least well integrated in capital should be hit the hardest and this includes disabled people.

Finally, it is worth noting that as disabled people win more and more concessions from the state due to their desire to participate in capitalist society on an equal footing, the more dependent they will become on the state, and when, as inevitably will happen, the state rolls back their victories, it will hit them much harder. These contradictions within the disability rights movement must lead us on to look for more radical solutions to the problem.

The abolition of disability

The abolition of disability has been a goal of many social movements and popular fantasies under capitalism. Examples of this abound. Eugenics had its heyday in Nazi Germany, but significantly predates Nazism and is a tendency that is still with us in attempts to make sure no children with down’s syndrome are born by scanning and aborting foetuses, to ‘managing’ the sexual behaviour of people with profound learning difficulties or mental health conditions, to flat out murder dressed up as ‘mercy killing’. Less despicable, but structurally similar, are the techno-fantasies that imagine that with the right medical science, no one need be disabled in the future.

What these approaches have in common is that they do not wish to do away with disability; they wish to do away with disabled people. Since disability is not simply a collection of individuals, but a feature of capitalist social relations, their approaches are doomed to failure regardless of how morally acceptable we do or don’t find them.

If disability is a feature particular to capitalism, and if communism abolishes capitalism, it follows then that communism abolishes disability. But how does it do this? It’s always dangerous to sketch out, even in the broadest terms, possible future societies. However, we may risk a few comments explaining why disability cannot exist under communism. Taking communist society characterised to be characterised by self management of production and life in general, and where the slogan ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’ is applied, it is possible to see how disability can be done away with.

It is easy to see how the phrase ‘to each according to their needs’ will abolish an aspect of disability. If we produce for need rather than profit there is no reason why we should not chose to produce buildings, equipment, technologies and so on that are designed on the assumption that physical and psychological variation of all sorts is a normal part of human society and that it is right to take this fully into account when producing thing for people to use.

The phrase ‘from each according to their ability’ less obviously deals with disability, but is in fact more fundamental to understanding why communism abolishes it. As we have seen, disability is defined by people’s inability to do certain things that they are supposed, as good worker, to be able to do. Under capitalism workers are interchangeable. We are only allowed to produce (or, for that matter, consume) in ways designed to maximise profit. In a society where production is self managed and for use, it would be inconceivable to prevent people from contributing to society on the grounds of what they were unable to do, when there was a great number of things that they could do. In societies with less abundance than western capitalism, there simply has not been the surplus to allow people to go without contributing, albeit often in horrifically exploitative ways. Capitalism has created both the necessary surplus and the logic of production to stop disabled people in particular, and the working class in general, from contributing fully or often at all. Communism, through the self management of production according to the principle that people contribute in the ways they are most able to, overcomes capitalism’s exclusionary practice and overcomes the logic of alienation upon which capitalist production is built. The full and equal integration of all people into the reproduction of society, regardless of factors such as impairment, is surely the goal of communism and the foundation of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

[raceandspeculation]

Ripley vs. Patriarchy and Colonialism

The Alien quadrilogy is a major milestone in science fiction and horror film history. The protagonist of the quadrilogy, Ellen Ripley, goes through major transformations because of her constant battle with the series’ primary antagonist, the Xenomorphs. Although Ripley spends a majority of her time on-screen trying to survive the violent Xenomorphs, she is also contending against enemies that exist off-screen and in our own reality. Patriarchy and colonialism are themes that Aliens and Alien 3 explore in detail, as well as create different narratives and ways for the movies to be understood. These themes play off of each other, allowing for the audience to identify the social implications created by them, and a deeper understanding of Ripley’s reaction to these invisible forces.

The Xenomorphs are similar to beasts and other sci-fi monsters because they kill indiscriminately. As noted by the android Ash in the first film, they do not have “delusions of morality”. They are not mindless creatures, as displayed in the final scene of Aliens, when Ripley points a gun at the queen in order to allow herself safe passage to get to Newt. The queen lets out a roar, and the warrior drones back away, acknowledging the queens warning. Again, we see the Xenomorph in Alien 3 refuse to attack Ripley because she is pregnant with an alien queen. There is a clear and distinct respect among the Xenomorphs, especially for the queen, who serves as the mother of their species. Unfortunately, the human species doesn’t have the same set of values in regards to women.

Vasquez, the only female Marine that the film pays particular attention to, is also framed by her relationship to patriarchy. When the Marines are introduced early on in the movie, misogynist comments are directed at her by some of the male Marines. She casually and humorously brushes them off, proving she can take it and dish it out. It seems as though her bravado and gung-ho attitude are attempts to assimilate herself into an all male military unit. Her occasional use of Spanish expletives seem like a form of resistance against her white and mostly male colleagues.

Despite Ripley’s experience and intelligence, she is constantly ignored by men in charge. In Aliens, she is asked to accompany a unit of Marines investigating a colony on the same planet her crew first encountered the Xenomorphs. Despite her experience with Xenomorphs, her advice on how to deal with them falls on deaf ears. When she explains that the pulse rifles the Marines are using could possibly hit a reactor and cause an explosion that will kill them all, her warning isn’t acted on until Burke, a representative of the Weyland-Yutani corporation, supports this claim. The officer in charge then decides that it would be wise to use other weaponry to combat the Xenomorphs. It is only until a majority of the original crew is killed off that Ripley’s counsel is taken into consideration.

The prison warden in Alien 3 is another example of patriarchy that exists in the film.  When she requests an autopsy be performed on Newt, Ripley makes no mention of Xenomorphs or her past experiences, despite the numerous questions she is asked by the prison’s doctor. She has already been conditioned to understand that men in power either disregard her warnings or don’t believe her. The scene in which some of the prisoners ambush Ripley in an attempt to rape her is important because of the way in which she survived that situation. In an article titled, “You’ve been in my life so long I can’t remember anything else”: Into the labyrinth with Ripley and the Alien”, the author states, “ Dillon, too, rescues Ripley from the three prisoners who are about to rape and perhaps murder her, just as Parker rescued her when Ash attempted to kill her by ramming a magazine down her throat. Without their help, Ripley would not have survived” (Gibson, 47). Ripley is able to successfully defend herself from a vicious Alien species mostly by herself, but is always rescued by another man when she is brutalized by men. Later in the film, when Ripley witnesses the attack of the prison doctor by the Xenomorph, she is yelled at and told to be quiet by the warden when she alerts them of what has just happened. This isn’t the first time he has disregarded her warnings or suggestions, but it proves to be the last. After he is snatched up by the Xenomorph, the surviving inmates and staff decide that Ripley is someone worth listening to, but only because they’ve witnessed what happens to those that don’t. Her sacrifice at the end of the film is not just a means to an end, but also a political statement. The men that wish to possess her body in order to exploit it have been denied by her sacrifice, and the galaxy is all the more safer for it.

The Weyland-Yutani Corporation plays an important role in the telling of the story in these films. They manage to be present in every film by way of proxy. In Aliens, they are represented by Carter Burke. Carter Burke does a good job at fooling Ripley and the audience into believing that the Weyland-Yutani Corportations involvement and interest in the military operation is to righteously eradicate the alien scum that destroyed their colony. We realize later on in the movie that the only reason Burke was dispatched with Ripley and the unit was to oversee the possible capture of the Xenomorphs to study and possibly use as a biological weapon. In the book, Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley, the authors state,“Whereas in Alien, Ash (and Mother) were simply following orders, Burke, the self-serving bureaucrat, pursues only his interests with no consideration for law, morality, or common human decency. In a way, he is worse than Ash, for unlike the android, who was obviously programmed to be scientifically curious (as is Bishop), Burke displays no respect for, or aesthetic interest in, the Alien. He does not even acknowledge its danger; for him, the Alien is just a commodity to be traded for profit.”(Gallardo-C. & Smith, 84). It’s clear that the Weyland-Yutani Corporation is engaging in a futuristic form of colonialism. With access to an unimaginable number of planets, corporations have become their own sovereign states, taking from the galaxy as they see fit. Because of the nature of Xenomorphs and their need for human hosts, Weyland-Yutani is willing to exploit human bodies for a profit. What’s even more telling is the military unit that is dispatched to the colony on LV-426. Although they speak and behave like the Marines we know on earth, these Marines are a bit different. They are actually called the Colonial Marines, and sent on a mission deemed necessary by a corporation. The movie doesn’t make a big deal of it, but it’s worth noting that a governmental organization like the military is doing the dirty work for a mega-corporation.

Alien 3 may not have the presence of the Colonial Marines, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t expose the colonialism practiced by the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. The planet Ripley has crash landed on is actually a penal colony, where the prisoners work as foundry workers. This time, the resource being exploited is convict labor. The Weyland-Yutani Corporation quickly dispatches a unit once they realize that a Xenomorph is alive and present at the prison. The resource to be exploited again becomes the Xenomorph, with the added inclusion of Ripley. Her body, and the body of the Xenomorph, are to be exploited for economical gain. In the essay, The ‘Alien’ trilogy: from feminism to Aids, the author states “In Alien 3, the body, which in retrospect seems to have been remarkably repressed in the first two films, becomes a landscape, obsessively probed and examined with fingers and eyes, pentrated in close-up with needles, knives, and saws” (Taubin, 93). The bodies of both Ripley and the Alien have become “landscapes”, waiting to be pillaged by the invasive scientists of the Weyland-Yutani corporation.

Patriarchy and colonialism are responsible for some of the most exploitative acts and practices in human history, and according to the creators of the film, they manage to live on well into the future. The films exist in a dystopian future, where human lives are considered expendable by the corporations that employ them. Men are still mostly in charge and still manipulate a woman’s body, both figuratively and literally, to serve their own wants and needs. Ripley challenges the status quo, and in the end, gives her own life to reclaim some semblance of power and control. Ripley serves as a symbol of resistance against patriarchy and colonialism, and ends up a martyr that has gained victory over her on-screen and off-screen enemies.

Word Count: 1543

Works Cited

Taubin, Amy. “The 'Alien' trilogy: from feminism to Aids.” Women and Film: A Sight and Sound Reader, edited by Pam Cook and Philip Dodd, Scarlet Press, London, 1997, pp. 93–100.

Gibson, Pamela Church. “"You've been in my life so long I can't remember anything else": Into the labyrinth with Ripley and the Alien.” Keyframes: Popular Cinema and Cultural Studies, edited by Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarejo, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 35–51.

Gallardo-C., Ximena, and C. Jason Smith. Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley. London, Continuum, 2004.