#I’m not a Man. but I do resonate with Boyhood a lot

[iamthemaestro]

I realize I think a lot about my life in terms of “maybe when I’m a boy…” my brother in christ. maybe you are an EGG

[365days365movies]

February 13, 2021: Before Sunrise (1995) (Part 1)

There are directors, and there are directors.

We all know the big boy directors, right? Stephen Spielberg, James Cameron, Martin Scorcese, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, so on and so forth. The movies they make are famous because they’re attached to them, and also because they are often good.

But then, you have the directors who are known by their name, but also for their very particular styles. Yeah, some of the above are known for that as well, but here’s what I mean. I’ll show you a GIF of a film, and you tell me who did this, yeah? OK, go.

Wes Anderson, duh. Look at that shot; it’s so Wes Anderson, you can FEEL Bill Murray and Owen Wilson’s acting leaking through it. OK, let’s try another.

Well, hi there Terence Malick; how are you doing these fine evening? Pretentiously? Yeah, yeah, that tracks. OK, what about conceptual auteurism? What if I told you that there was a long-form film series that tracked the relationship of a couple over the course of 18 years, in different stages of their relationship from meeting to marriage?

Yeah, that’s the most Richard Linklater thing I’ve ever heard of.

Which is funny, because Linklater’s done a LOT of films, all of whom are different conceptually. School of Rock, Dazed and Confused, A Scanner Darkly, Slacker, etc. But they mostly seem to revolve around suburbia, or slice-of-life style situations. And then...there’s Boyhood.

Yeah, this film is gimmicky as HELL, but it was apparently a good movie. And, yes, it’s on my list for this year. But in case you didn’t know, Boyhood chronicles the childhood of a kid from ages 6 to 18, and was filmed from 2001 to 2013. Yeah. It chronicled the actual growth of this kid actor, Ellar Coltrane, and that of his character in the movie. And gimmicky, maybe...but that’s neat. And it sort of formed my opinion on Linklater, because this was the first I’d heard of the guy.

So, in other words, finding out about the Before trilogy of romances (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight) afterwards wasn’t very surprising. And I’m not watching ALL of them this month, but I’ll start with the first one! Let’s DO IT! First Richard Linklater film for me, so I’m excited! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Recap

A train travels through the European countryside. On the train are a variety of people, including a seemingly married couple arguing loudly in German. The argument prompts a young French woman, Celine (Julie Delpy) to move seats. In her new seat, she’s now across from Jesse (Ethan Hawke), a young American man.

The two get to know each other, with Jesse opening the conversation by wondering the arguing couple was saying. Neither of them speak very good German, so the conversation soon turns to small talk. They go to the lounge car together and begin their conversation in earnest.

Jesse is headed to Vienna, while Celine is headed back home to Paris. And when I say they have a conversation, I mean that. Jesse talks about his ideas for a slice-of-life style TV show he wants to make one day, they talk about their parents’ expectations, so on and so forth.

This also turns into a conversation about death, and the funny thing is...it all seems very natural. I mean, this is an intimate conversation, when you really think about it. However, the trajectory of the conversation is quite smooth, and flows into this. That may be due to the natural chemistry that these two appear to possess, and...it works. Already, this early on, it’s working on me.

The train gets to Vienna, and working off of their established chemistry, Jesse asks if Celine would be willing to get off the train with him in Vienna. While he doesn’t have a hotel to stay at, and was basically just planning on wandering around, he convinces her to stay through natural charm. And this, by the way is before they even know each others’ names.

However, they acknowledge that this is a touch awkward, and they decide to find something to do. They find a couple of actors on the street, and ask them what there is to do around town, as they’ll only be there for one night. They invite Jesse and Celine to a play (which sounds GENUINELY TERRIBLE), and also point out that they can go to a local fair that night.

They get on a bus, and Jess decides to start off their new conversation with a few direct questions. The first one is what her first sexual feelings for a person are, and she describes a summer camp fling, at which she met a swimmer to was smooth, like a “gorgeous dolphin.” Direct quote, just so we’re clear.

She asks him if he’s ever been in love, and he gives a one-word answer. hen prompted to elaborate, he expresses some doubt about the whole concept of love, in general. So, we’ve got an optimistic romantic in the form of Celine, and a cynical realist in the form of Jesse. An interesting pairing, I gotta say.

He asks what pisses her off, she asks what problems she has, and again, the conversation goes back and forth like this. She talks about her identity as a French person in other countries, he talks about the existential question of life and reincarnation, and they get off the bus.

In a local record shop, they spend some time in a listening booth, and listen to Kath Bloom’s “Come Here.” With that as the background track, the two set out that evening once again, boarding the bus and making their way to the fair.

They find a small graveyard, where Celine had visited when she was a teenager. The people buried there were found washed up on the course of the Danube for various reasons, and the spot always resonated strongly with Celine. After this, they head to a giant Ferris wheel, where they share their first kiss, and they hug afterwards.

They go to the fair down below, where they share their family backgrounds and views on parenting, as well as their clashing views on romance. Afterwards, they get a drink a a local shop, and are approached by a palm reader who offers her services to Celine. This, naturally, prompts another conversation.

And really, that’s what this film is: it’s two people getting to know each other over the course of a day. And that natural, believable, yet fast progression of a relationship, is interesting, and well as well-done. Thus far, anyway. We obviously aren’t done yet.

Buuuuut, we’re gonna pick this up again in a part 2, I think! See you there!

[tontherocks]

Transition is about who I am. But more about who I want to become.

What I didn’t understand before I came out was that transition can be more about who you become than who you are. Instead of ruminating “who you really are” or “who you resonate with”, a question to guide yourself through coming out could be: Who do I want to become? What do I want to learn more about, and from which point of view?

I decided I wanted to learn a certain style of maleness. I want to spend more time and get in touch more deeply with other men and masculine-of-center-people, both cis and trans. I’m still not sure what “maleness” is all about and whether I’m “man enough” and how I relate to other genders, but I’m content that I’m exploring maleness right now and that I may continue to do so for the rest of my life.

For me, one way to tap more into “malehood” was medical transition. Prior to transitioning, I didn’t understand how much about gender is doing gender, after all.

In feminist spaces I was introduced early to the concept that gender was “(just) doing gender”, often in a dismissive, cis-normative way: either that my assigned gender resulted in a certain socialization process, hence socially imprinting my gender, or that I just needed to “perform differently” to be seen and experience myself as male, thus no medical transition necessary.

That “doing gender” may entail a trans-centered, empowering perspective is an interpretation I just got to explore fairly recently. That I “do gender” means that I can learn how I relate to my gender expression and to other men, that I get to grow, every day doing malehood means getting better at being a man, that I get to decide how I do maleness.

It means there is so very much to learn. It means that transition really is a life-long process and that there are no shortcuts. I didn’t know how much fun it can be to figure out my gender expression. I may want to try out different things over time and that I am allowed to fail in maleness: because every man does.

No cis person has carved out their “final” gender expression, once and for all. Since bodies and gender roles change over time, they simply cannot. Cis people certainly are “ahead”, as much as comfort, knowledge validation, experience, repertoire of their gender, body and sometimes sexuality go, since indeed they have some gender-supporting socializing years more under their belt. On the other hand, they also have a lot of toxic things to unpack in their “correctly gendered” childhood and adolescence. So, to closely examine any labels, expectations, and stereotypes is something cis and trans people do have in common, after all.

I’m trying to actively engage in learning to “man in”. I try to ask all these questions about boyhood, adulting as a man, developing one’s masculine-centered gender expression, how to use the tools of gender (in a mindful, non-violent, oppression-reflected way) to handle struggles related to manhood. I try to see cis men with less projections and to relate more. Cis men struggle, too. They don’t have it figured out. Not any more or less than I do at this point.

So, I try to not let my shame around my trans status holding me back to actually get to have one-on-one-conversations with somewhat-open minded men about anything, because they are wondering, too: how to solve conflict, how to be vulnerable, how to live “the good life”, how to defy expectations, how to be patient, how to navigate sex and body and a whole lot more.

[wykart]

Delilah’s Masterwork

It’s here, the AU that no one was waiting for... it’s the one where Delilah succeeds in the DLC and is now empress (yay) 

Summary: When Daud falls to Billie Lurk after the Overseers storm the flooded district, there is no one left to stop Delilah from finishing her masterwork and stepping into Emily Kaldwin's skin. Forced to flee, Corvo tries to uncover the ritual that has taken his daughter, along with a few remaining Whalers still loyal to Daud. Meanwhile, in the capital, Delilah rules her empire with Breanna and Billie by her side, uniting the Whalers and her coven into an unstoppable occult force. But, Delilah has her eyes set on a greater prize; to be worshiped throughout the isles, and to take the throne of the Outsider himself.

read chapter 1 under the cut or here on ao3 

When Pretty Emily woke one day,

She saw the world a different way,

Her eyes now looked with a stranger's guile,

Her dainty mouth smiled a stranger's smile,

Her hands now worked the stranger's wrath,

Her feet now walked a stranger's path,

Emily fed, another grew stronger,

The stranger's cravings drove her onward,

And no one who looked on Emily's face,

Ever guessed who ruled in Emily's place.

- Delilah Copperspoon, 1837

...

“Corvo, are you there? It’s dark. It’s so dark, and I don’t know where I am.”

Corvo wrestled the key into the lock, the blood of Farley Havelock still wet and glistening on his blade. The old Admiral lay dead on the newly laid carpet of King-sparrow Lighthouse, his betrayed comrades Martin and Pendleton slumped over their poisoned glasses at the banquet table. The killing was over, though he feared that the worst was yet to come. The guards patrolling the fortress still wanted him dead, and his head carried a thirty-thousand coin bounty across the isles. Convincing the public of his innocence was going to be difficult, even with the evidence of journals and audio graphs that Havelock had so carelessly left behind. That was, if there was a public to convince at all. The plague didn’t care who was empress, no matter what Teague Martin preached at the Abbey. Noble blood couldn’t save them from the doom of Pandyssia.

The lock clicked, and he pushed on the gold-ornamented wood tentatively – bracing for some new threat to spring forth at him. Instead, he found Emily, just as Havelock had said, standing patiently in the centre of the room. Emily wasn’t patient.

“Royal Protector,” she said, voice cold and clear. He tried not to appear hurt, usually the girl would jump joyously at the sight of him, or at the very least call him by name. He cursed the loyalists once more, wondering what they had done to her to change her manner so. He took it in his stride, as he did so many things, and pulled off his mask – hopefully for the last time.

“Emily,” he said, offering her a hand. She ignored him and continued past, brown eyes indifferent – moving up the stairs towards Havelock’s commanding office. She didn’t even comment on the body of the Admiral growing cold by the door. “Emily!” He tried again, as her footsteps echoed sharp and tinny on the metal stairs. No response. He was making to follow her when she switched on the Admiral’s microphone – a broadcasting station to the whole island.

“City watch, this is your Empress, Emily Kaldwin.” She didn’t sound like herself. A regal, ancient tone resonated in her young voice. "Guards to the inner chambers immediately! Corvo Attano has broken through our defences.” At that he sprung up steps with the heightened speed and agility that drew from the void between the world. In less than a moment he was by her side, reluctantly pulling the mouthpiece from her hands. “The Admiral is dead,” he muffled voice still rang through. “Protect me!” That was the moment when his hand closed over hers, and he saw the truth plainly. “Protect your empress!” She cried, this time in a woman’s voice – deep, clear, and sharp as his sword. She turned to him in alarm, and there were her eyes – icy blue and uncaring. In his shock, he almost missed the first shot as it rang out through the lighthouse foyer – an elite guardsman firing a sturdy pistol up towards the landing.

He grasped the fabric of time and pulled it to a stop. The world was grey and swimming before him, that awful drumming and buzzing in his ears as if he were being dragged down deeper and deeper. Emily’s hand was frozen and ghostly white in his own, but something moved and shimmered around her. Concentrating, the being came into focus, and the smoke formed a face, jaunted and pale. It smiled.

“What have you done to Emily?” He demanded.

Its grin only grew wider as it spoke, that same tone of voice that Emily now spoke with. “I’m afraid that precious Emily is gone, Lord Protector. Only I am here now.”

“Who –“ the slowed, droning cry of one of the guards sounded as Corvo’s grip over reality faltered. He couldn’t hold it in place much longer.

“I’d hurry if I were you, dear Corvo,” she teased, “time is running out.” He had no choice. Once again, he had no choice but to run. It seemed innocence was a lot farther off than he’d hoped. He let time slip through his fingers and the rogue bullet smashed one of the crystals hanging from the chandelier. The watch rushed in, brandishing blades and hot pistols, crying out in the name of the empress and the fallen lord reagent. He dashed towards the stairs, covering two flights in a second and a wash of bluish mist. The mark on his hand burned with power, craving blood. There was no way he was getting back down to the base of the structure without carving a bloody path to do so. An exploit like that was tempting – now that he finally had nothing left to lose. His hope of restoring Emily stayed his hand. He was no expert in the occult – he hadn’t even believed in such things until the Outsider had paid him a visit – but he knew that rituals, no matter how powerful they seemed, were the deeds of men on earth, and they could be undone. The guards clambered up the stairs behind him, as clumsy as he was swift. The stinging salty hair whipped at his unmasked face. It felt good as the cold tossed through his hair, billowed his cloak. He’d been so close to getting it all back – a life in a palace, with his daughter… now someone had taken it all from him yet again. That ghostly figure of a woman wrapped like a snake around his daughter’s throat. Those days spent in the flooded district winding his way back to the Hound Pits through streets and sewer tunnels. That long trip along the water to the island at the edge of Dunwall… they had left Emily unguarded, and now she was gone. He leapt his way to the highest point of the tower, where the wind was at its fiercest and metal beneath him its coldest. A tin bridge to nowhere, overlooking the vast murky ocean. The guards rounded the corner. The younger ones where terrified, but determined – their lower guard caps swept off on the wind. One of them stepped forwards, braving the creaking, soaked metal. Corvo simply sighed, not wishing to make a spectacle of himself yet knowing that this would make for a daring and popular tavern tale. He leapt off the edge of the lighthouse.

He pulled himself down into a streamlined position, head locked between his arms in hope that his skull would remain relatively un-rattled, repeatedly dashing and re-materialising closer to the water to lessen the impact, as many times as his power would allow. He tried to imagine himself back on the Southern ridges of Serkonos, diving off the sandy cliffs and into clear tropical waters in the summers of his boyhood. It was a difficult image to conjure up, especially given the wailing winds and bitter cold sea-spray battering his body as he fell.

“I’m here,” he tried to say, but he couldn’t speak. It was as if he were drowning, his lungs heaving under the weight of crashing waves, screams muffled into inculminatous bubbles of air.

The void was dark, as if its sunless sky were setting. The bright blue haze was fading to a richer, royal shade, and the grey cobbles stretching out before him crumbled under his weight. She was there – a slight figure on the horizon, clothed in creamy white lace and frills, calling his name.

“Corvo?” She cried, that energetic, child-like tone restored. But only in his dreams. He reached out to her as the void fell away, the hazy blue deepening to dusky sea green.

His eyes began to sting and blur, and his chest burned as his lungs drew in water. The greying sun was a distant wave on the surface of the water, far away. Too far. Emily.

...

“Corvo?” She asked, one final attempt. She knew he wasn’t here. Whales floated by in the blue mists – bloodied and moaning. Upturned stones were suspended in spiralling paths, and trees stood upside-down, reaching down towards the endless void. She’d heard tales of this place. This was a place for the dead and the unfaithful. She was terrified. A coil of dark smoke erupted, spitting fragments of black stone – knitting themselves into the shape of a man. He floated a few inches off the ground, arms crossed, looking down a pointed nose through pitch black eyes. She’d seen him before. A figure of her nightmares. He cocked his head to one side, surveying her without saying a word.

“Who are you?” She demanded, “am I dreaming?” She added, suddenly uncertain. Surely a place like this couldn’t be real, despite the Abbey’s teachings.

“In a way, your majesty, I suppose you are,” his voice was cold, layered as if echoing throughout a great chamber, muffled as if sounding from beneath the surface of a pond. It was eerie, the way his outline shifted and swayed like gas dancing in the air. “Except, this isn’t just any old dream, this, I think you know.” She nodded, and he continued, “this is a dream from which you will never wake, not if the new empress has her way.”

Emily furrowed her brow and put her hands on her hips, indignant at the thought. “But I am the empress, there’s no one else!”

“No, there isn’t," he agreed. “It’s a tricky matter that you will soon understand.” She wished he’d speak plainly. She reminded her of one of her mother’s advisors – so many pretty words that said nothing at all. The late empress had warned her of such people. “As for who I am,” he said, looking past her with those terrible eyes, “I think you know, Lady Emily.”

Of course she did, those pompous overseers always talked of him; an evil being that brought corruption and sin to all it touched. “Y-you’re the Outsider.” She tried to keep her voice from stumbling, an Empress should not fear anything. He didn’t confirm the fact, just smiled thinly. “Am I really going to be here forever?”

“Forever is an impossibly long time, your majesty. Whether here in the void, or looking out of your own eyes, a prisoner. You will be here until someone can undo what has been done. I, however, will be gone much sooner, if the empress has her way.” Before she could ask what he meant, he was gone as he’d appeared; in a swirl of smoke and black stone.

“Wait! –“ she cried out to the empty air. She didn’t want to be alone here. She couldn’t be alone again.

[lindsay36ho]

Success, or Just a Sensation? Stuart Isacoff on Van Cliburn’s Moscow Win — 60 Years On

When Stuart Isacoff received an assignment to write a cover story on Van Cliburn’s comeback to the concert scene, this led to a friendship between the two that lasted until the pianist’s death.

Piano Street’s David Wärn has met the author of When the World Stopped to Listen: Van Cliburn’s Cold War Triumph and Its Aftermath, a personal and moving book presenting a sympathetic but honest account of the life of the legendary American pianist.

When Van Cliburn died on February 27 in 2013, the whole world was reminded of his sensational 1958 win at the inaugural Tchaikovsky competition in Moscow. Since then, two important biographies of Cliburn have been written. For the British historian Nigel Cliff, whose Moscow Nights: The Van Cliburn Story was published just before Stuart Isacoff’s book, Cliburn’s death and the ensuing obituaries provided the first opportunity to hear the full story of the pianist’s life, a tale that he thinks resonates particularly strongly today: “while we contemplate talk of a new Cold War, it can be illuminating to recall that Russia and America have had a love-hate relationship for a long while.” Isacoff, on the other hand, had wanted to write Cliburn’s biography since the late 1980s — his basement was already full of material for the book, including taped interviews with Cliburn’s boyhood friends and relatives. Isacoff, with his stronger personal connection to the subject matter and his background as a pianist, unsurprisingly provides a more knowing and intimate portrait. He also a tells a more coherent tale, taking in the larger picture without losing focus on the main character and on the cultural, political and artistic significance of Cliburn’s life story. However, for those interested in as many details as possible about the political processes of the Cold War, Cliff’s book might be a good complement.

‘The Rise and Fall and Rise of Van Cliburn’

In 1989, Van Cliburn returned to the concert scene after an eleven-year break. Isacoff received an assignment from a magazine called Ovation to do a cover story on Cliburn and his comeback. The magazine no longer exists; in fact it went under with that cover story, and Isacoff was never paid. “Van said it probably went under because his picture was on the cover. I said no, it was because of my writing.”

The editor wanted a negative story. He showed Isacoff a photo of Cliburn and said ‘look at that smug smile on his face’. Isacoff didn’t think it looked smug at all, but soon realized that Cliburn was looked down on by some people. “Van was considered sort of phony. You take a New York intellectual snob looking at him, and… he was just perceived as being a country bumpkin. He was very flamboyant, and sentimental — not an urban personality.”

Isacoff started to do research, listening to Cliburn’s recordings. “I thought, this is so beautiful… I can’t write a negative story about this man. I didn’t have it in my heart to do that. So I ignored that part of it. I flew to Fort Worth, Texas, and met with him there; it was one of the years when they were having the competition. He didn’t like to give interviews, and wouldn’t let me take him somewhere to talk privately. Instead, he stood in the middle of this room with people running over and hugging him, exclaiming: Van, Van…! He was taking time to individually hug each person and look in their eyes. He said: go ahead, interview me while I’m doing this. So I spoke with him and took notes while he stood there hugging people.” Isacoff called his article The Rise and Fall and Rise of Van Cliburn. “Van was really happy with it. His mother said there was never any fall, so she didn’t like that part.”

An utterly Van-like evening

In september that year, Cliburn performed the Tchaikovsky concerto at the opening of the Meyerson Concert Hall in Dallas. On the basis of his article, Isacoff was invited to Cliburn’s private dinner party afterwards, and was entranced. He decided that he was going to write a book about the pianist. Not only did Cliburn play like an angel: the history of what he had done, his relations with Kruschev and the Soviet people — Isacoff found all this extremely fascinating.

He went to Cliburn’s boyhood town of Kilgore, Texas, to interview the pianist’s old neighbors and boyhood friends. Cliburn also came to do a recital, in order to raise money for the Harvey Lavan and Rildia Bee Cliburn Scholarship. In his book, Isacoff writes about that “beautiful, strange, and utterly Van-like evening”: Cliburn always had terrible stage fright, and it was much worse in front of neighbors, friends, and family. His hands were shaking so badly that after barely making it through the first piece he left the stage. After about twenty or thirty minutes, he reappeared and continued, suddenly cool and calm. Later in the evening, a weight seemed to have lifted from his shoulders. There was a little buffet in the gymnasium at Kilgore College, and Van was going around inviting people to go to the town church — this was around midnight — where he had convinced the organist to open up the church and give an organ recital in the middle of the night.

Stuart Isacoff

Isacoff had done several interviews with people in Kilgore and New York who knew Cliburn and went to school with him, when he found out that Cliburn really didn’t want him to write the book. “I had all these little tape cassettes, which I stored in my basement. I put it all away when I heard he didn’t want me to do it. Then, more recently, it seemed like it was time to take it all out again and start writing. All these years later, these tape cassettes still work, which amazed me.”

The American Sputnik

Van Cliburn was taught by his mother, Rildia Bee, herself an accomplished pianist who had studied with Arthur Friedheim, a pupil of Liszt. He began giving recitals at four and made his orchestral debut at twelve, in Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto with the Houston Symphony Orchestra. At the Juilliard School of Music in New York, he studied with Rosina Lhévinne, and after winning the prestigious Leventritt award he embarked on a series of debuts with major American orchestras. But with his win in Moscow, the tall, 23-year-old Texan, powerful in performance yet radiating a kind of childlike innocence, became not only a successful pianist, but a symbol for American greatness.

The American victory came as a stunning surprise. The Tchaikovsky Competition had been conceived by the Soviet regime as a showcase for Russian artistic supremacy, illustrating what the poet Mayakovsky had described as the opposition between “the materially poor but spiritually dynamic Soviet Union and the rich but spiritually poor United States.” Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had been steadily rising since the launch in 1957 of the first Sputnik space satellite. But while his Russian rivals at the competition were extremely well trained, their performances paled compared to Cliburn’s heartfelt spontaneity and his enormous, singing sound. There was something different about Van’s art; also, it was obvious that he had a deep, genuine love for Russian music. Observers in both the Soviet Union and the United States began to refer to Van Cliburn as ‘the American Sputnik.’

According to Isacoff, this was a role he never wished for. “He didn’t care about politics at all. He was made an icon in the West because of the Cold War, and because of the fact that the US was behind in the space race. When he won, he was presented in the media as the American who conquered the Soviets. But he never saw it that way. He loved people; he just wanted to… spread the love. That’s partly why the Soviet people fell so in love with him. In fact, his friends in New York used to laugh at him because he was overly sentimental, gushing all the time. Everything was love… they were too sophisticated for that. He was perceived as being not real, while in fact he had no pretenses at all. But the Soviets ate it up, and returned those warm feelings to him. He was treated so beautifully there that he wanted to go back over and over again.”

Van Cliburn celebrates with Emil Gilels

‘Oh no, I’m not a success, I’m just a sensation’

When Cliburn returned from the competition, several reporters flocked to New York’s Idlewild Airport to meet him. You must think you are a big success, one of them threw out. Oh no, I’m not a success, I’m just a sensation, answered the young prize winner. He was received by a ticker-tape parade in New York, and soon made a million-selling recording of the Tchaikovsky concerto, but after some time critical misgivings began to be voiced. Everyone had expected his qualities to mature and deepen, but this never seemed to happen. Cliburn found the treadmill of a concert career less and less bearable, and his words at the airport tragically rang more true as his career went on. “He was not psychologically prepared for what happened, and burned out very quickly. It was overwhelming. He was not used to having to perform all the time, and they always wanted the same pieces: Tchaikovsky 1st and Rachmaninoff 3rd. He became almost like a robot,” says Isacoff.

“People like Kirill Kondrashin, the conductor, said to him: Van, you have to take time off. You need to relax and study, to deepen your understanding and not wear yourself out. But Van said: Kirill, I can’t stop, because if I do people will forget me. A lot of that probably came from his mother, who became his road manager and kept him in line. She was very strict — not an easy person, and not particularly nice. But he was devoted to her; she lived almost to a hundred, and he took care of her. But the psychological impact of that was not good.”

Other types of problems also rose in Cliburn’s life. “He was getting injections for a while from a doctor, Max Jacobson, who was nicknamed Dr. Feelgood. He administered amphetamines and other medications to famous artists, movie stars and politicians, including John F Kennedy. And Van got hooked on that. When that was over, he found other obsessions, like astrology. He was afraid to go on stage unless the stars said it was a good day to do it. He was always nervous, and had terrible stage fright. Recording was very difficult, because he pictured that students from Juilliard would sit listening to his playing, finding mistakes. He had all of these psychological impairments that accompanied him, and it wore him out.”

Happy endings

Even though Isacoff had to abandon the book project, he had a lot of contact with Cliburn in the years that followed and kept up with what was going on. “Van was a very generous person. I remember a birthday party for Joseph Bloch — a close friend of mine who taught piano literature at the Juilliard School for fifty years. All the people that went to Juilliard were in his class, including Van. But Van got an F in piano literature, because he never got to class. He couldn’t wake up in the morning. He stayed up all night, and in the morning he would call Bloch’s wife and say: Mrs Bloch, would you please apologize to your husband for me, I just can’t get out of bed. Bloch was in his 90s when he passed away, and I think it was for the occasion of his 90th birthday party, at Steinway Hall in New York, that I got in touch with Van and said: your old teacher who gave you an F is having a birthday party. Van immediately called this florist that he used near Carnegie Hall and had flowers sent over.”

While the tale of Van Cliburn has some of the elements of tragedy, Isacoff points out that there are also a number of happy endings to it. Van Cliburn created a lasting musical legacy and inspired love and admiration in generations of Russians, propelling diplomatic efforts between the rival superpowers. The competition and festival that bears his name is one of the world’s most important piano events, inspiring countless young musicians. On a personal level, the friendships formed in 1958 were lasting: for example, among the people who made a special journey to see him when learning he was ill was Liu Shikun, his Chinese rival at the Tchaikovsky Competition. Finally, what really made Cliburn’s end a happy one was Tommy Smith, the pianist’s life partner during his last two decades. Being with Smith, writes Isacoff, Van Cliburn “was no longer haunted by the past.”

The book on Amazon:

from Piano Street’s Classical Piano News https://www.pianostreet.com/blog/articles/success-or-just-a-sensation-stuart-isacoff-on-van-cliburns-moscow-win-60-years-on-9887/

[theparaminds]

It’s not as though Ryan Daley always knew himself as clearly as he does today. Often, the path has been muddled and near endless, seemingly never with a light at the end. Yet, through time, patience, and hope, Ryan has learned his purpose. He has learned why his existence matters.

For him, it is a pursuit of true art. It is his goal to create with the limitlessness of a child, to inspire the world to be better, to live with a passion unfelt prior. Whether it be in music or film, he expresses a soul honest, one understanding of youthful confusion, knowing full well the strength of his vulnerability. 

Armed with a tool belt of truth, artistic integrity and a grasp on the human experience, Ryan Daley is more than ready to tackle his greatest goals, and greatest fears, head-on. No longer will he allow himself to be boxed in by his damaging anxieties, instead, he looks forward to living carefree, finding beauty in every step of the way.

First question as always, how’s your day going and how are you?

What’s up man! My day is going well, thanks for asking. I hope you’re having a good day as well! I just got back from Toronto with my girlfriend, Steph, so I’m a bit all over the place at the moment, forgive me.

Overall, what is your best childhood memory of all time?

Man, I have so many good ones. All of which seem so far away right now, but whatever. There are two really fun memories from my childhood that will always make me smile no matter what. Both memories took place at the same location, Union Station in Washington, DC. One was with my mom and the other was with my dad!

So my mom would take my older brother and I to the parking lot of Union Station and let us drive around in circles. We would just sit on her lap and steer while she would press the gas to go. It was totally safe and we always had so much fun doing it. This was around the same time Big Willie Style by Will Smith came out so I had to be like 3 or 4 years old. That was the first rap album I ever heard. Just the two of us was my shit. I would think about me and mom whenever that song came on. She drove a sky blue Volvo back then. It was an older model too. I think it might have been from the 70’s or something, I don’t know. I don’t remember the exact model either but I would know it if I saw it. That car was so cool and it means so much to me now. Volvo is one of my favorite brands of all time because of the nostalgic connection that comes with it. I love Volvo!

Anyway, my second best childhood memory is going to the movies with my dad. He would take my older brother and I to the AMC theater at Union Station all the time. I’m sad it no longer exists, but yeah. It wasn’t the best movie theater either, but it was closest to our house. I still remember what it looked and felt like and everything! I wish I could go back. We saw so many good movies there.

What influences around your environment pushed you towards your creative path? What was it about them that spurred the decision?

Well honestly, I don’t know man. I went to elementary school in Washington, DC and every Wednesday my class would go to a place called Fillmore Arts Center. That’s where I was first introduced to Photoshop and the whole Adobe suite shit. I always looked forward to Wednesdays because of that. Art just always made the most sense to me, looking back. Visual art definitely sparked my interest first as a kid and my love for music and writing came later on. Fillmore Arts Center is definitely when and where a lot of it started for sure though.

I’m from DC, and there’s a lot of culture and cool history there but as of lately I’ve been constantly moving around, searching for inspiration elsewhere. A lot of my recent inspirations have come from movies and museums. I love to travel so I’m never anywhere for too long, ever. Going to college in downtown Richmond, Virginia and just traveling a lot in general helped me to be myself creatively and really come of age in my own skin.

You have the unique quality of not being just inspired by music, but also a strong love of a film, where did this emerge for you and how has it shaped your artistic output?

Of course, I’m inspired by a lot of movies as well. I always loved how movies and music both made me feel. And they both go hand in hand in a lot of ways too. Just as a music video can strengthen a song, a song or score can strengthen a movie. During the summer of my last year of high school, I went to New York Film Academy filmmaking program for teens. It was a 3 week intensive program in New York City. I was 17, living my best life running through Soho and Tribeca with friends! Shout out to my parents for paying for that program too. But yeah man, that’s when and where my love for film really started to transpire. Looking back, I wanted to be a filmmaker before anything else.

Watching and studying movies has me looking at things from all different angles and perspectives. Recently, I started questioning a lot of things I thought I once knew or believed and I’ve developed a pretty big imagination because of that. I’m like a newborn, everything is still so fascinating to me. Also, incorporating movies into my music is super important to me too. This technique adds another layer to my music and gives it a little bit more depth overall.

What’re three films you believe describe your artistic taste the best? Not necessarily your favorite, just the ones that describe.

Great question. Slacker and Boyhood by Richard Linklater both capture my style of artistic expression the best right now. I’m very much a minimalist in a lot of ways but I’m also always discovering new shit so my style and taste change constantly. But yeah, right now those movies are me, 100 percent! If you haven’t seen them yet, definitely add them to your list. They’re really good! Honestly, I feel like I am any and every coming of age movie. Lady Bird is another great movie that describes who I am at my core. Recently, I’ve gotten into a lot of independent shit. As I got older I started realizing independent movies and music are a lot better than mainstream, Hollywood studio shit. I don’t know why, they just are to me. They’re just so much more relatable and real. That’s what I want my music to feel and sound like.

On to music, what is the message you hope to explore within your music, and is it a goal of yours to resonate with others?

Self expression and vulnerability are really big components that exist within my music right now. Always make what’s on your heart. That’s what I want all aspiring artist to remember the older you get, the more aware you become. That’s one good thing about aging, you get wiser. I struggled a lot with finding myself for years growing up and I still do, even today. But I’m constantly evolving and changing. 5 years from now I don’t know what I’ll be like, or what I’ll be listening to. I’m sure I’ll be into things I have yet to be exposed to. I’m still figuring this shit out like everyone else. Growing up I couldn’t understand a lot of what I’ve come to terms with now. Artist like Kurt Cobain and Kevin Abstract really helped me find myself through the darkness though. I’m so much more accepting of myself than before. Who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks of you, love yourself no matter what. People will always judge, that’s life.

A lot of people don’t understand me and they alienate me. I’m definitely weird and I’m definitely crazy. I have multiple personalities and I struggle with anxiety, awkwardness, and a lot of overthinking too. I’m far from perfect, and I know that. This shit is just therapy for me though. Artist like me make shit just to stay sane and write off our demons. So thank you so much for this interview and to everyone that’s reading this right now, I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!

Anyway, I definitely want my music to resonate with people who might be going through similar issues. This is for the kids who are confused and misunderstood. My story is all of our story and vice versa. Growing up fucking sucks man.

Sonically, how will you develop over the next year and what plans and goals do you internally hold for yourself?

So I tried some super experimental shit for my last album. There’s an app on iPhone called Auxy that I downloaded last april and made 13 random beats from. At the time I felt super good about them. Keep in mind, I don’t produce whatsoever but I tried. There’s a lot of singing on my last album too. Shit was super experimental for me. Honestly, I had no idea what I was doing. I just made something out of what I had around me at the time. This summer’s project will sound more familiar to my beginnings. I want to get back to actually rapping, and maybe have real instrumentation this time around too. That would be tight.

Also, I want to be able to play more shows this year. Right now it’s hard for me to perform in a room full of unfamiliar faces and connect with them on an emotional and genuine level. This year I want to be able to do that, or at least try. I’m tired of overthinking shit.

Do you believe that future projects will build upon or subvert much of what you’ve released previously? And to add to that, what’s your vision with your upcoming work?

This summer’s project will look, sound, and feel like the year 2004. That’s the year I graduated elementary school. H2 Hummer’s and Cadillac Escalade’s were popular in hip hop back then. There will be some pop and r&b elements throughout but the majority will be rap. The thing is, I don’t want it to sound like anything being played right now, it has to be 2004, 100 percent. Everything must be done with precision.

I’m going to keep building upon what’s already out there for me and continue to curate my catalog in a unique way. Everyone always does the same shit. I want to go in the opposite directions always, even if that means going down a one way street. I’m always breaking rules and going against the grain. I want that same energy to translate through my art and music.

When approaching this new work, what changes or improvements have you made to your creative process? Or, is it barely a process and more so something random?

I’m approaching this new project in a similar way as my previous, starting with mood boarding and a lot of research! Since this next project will be inspired by a specific era, I’m going to travel backwards for bit. Inserting myself back into 2004 will really help me when coming up with ideas and other concepts. I’ll ask questions like; what were people wearing back then? What were people listening to? What did shopping malls look like? What were the commercials on tv selling? What dreams were being sold to the youth of my generation?

These are all questions that will need to be answered while starting this new project. I’m going to watch a lot of movies that were released that year as well. Ultimately, I want to fully immerse myself in 2004 rap and pop culture because that’s when I fell in love with music. When G-unit and D12 were the focal point of rap. 50 cent and Eminem were my idols back then and before rap music I was listening to alternative rock and shit like that.

As far as idea building goes, this new work will be treated more as a group project rather than an independent release. I’m working alongside Unit 4, a creative union me and my friends Deontae Murphy and ATF started back in 2014. Having a group of people around me to help with writing and song arrangement will make our final product that much better. There’s power in numbers when it comes to product building. Working from this angle, all successes will be shared and valued. My goal is to do peer evaluations at the end of this project too, so we’ll all know who held their weight and who didn’t. We’ll post our grades online after we’re finished so everyone can see who was in charge of what. Team building is really important and I always had a hard time working w others so this will be good for me. This is all trial and error.

While a large question, what do you hope your artistic legacy to become? What is it you hope to leave this earth having accomplished?

Another great question man. This one is loaded but overall, I don’t know. Right now, I’ll take whatever the people decide for me. My legacy is up to them. They’ll decide if I’m a huge star or not. As long as I’m remembered as a kind, genuine person, I’m happy. That’s all that matters to me. Jim Carrey and Shia Labeouf both helped me realize this. Those are two idols of mine who helped shape my most recent beliefs and ideologies on success. They’re both insanely brilliant and understand that ego should not exist. We are nothing without each other.

So a small community of like minded people who celebrate my music and artistry in unison is more than enough for me. Less is more. Plus, a lot of celebrities are bozo’s and a lot of great artist won’t ever make it A list because they’ll never sell out. When you reach a certain status you lose control of your product too. I’m too much of a perfectionist to ever let this happen so who knows how far I’ll actually get. People are just so lost in the game that they don’t even realize the game is now playing them. Just play to play and you’ll win every time.

I’m trying to be organic and iconic at the same time while telling my story and getting my points across. And I’ll still have some years left when I leave earth. I’m going to die on mars with Elon Musk. We won’t die on impact and I’ll leave mars having made a better tomorrow for our future generations. Before leaving earth I’ll play a really big festival somewhere, make a cool movie with friends and marry the girl of my dreams.

And one more thing before we move on, I want everyone to remember me as the guy who wore the same shit every day and never changed. White t-shirt, blue khaki pants, and vans. That’s my uniform now. Basic is the new weird. Basically.

Is it within your plans to begin exploring the live setting more? How it that you hope to innovate the live show experience?

Yes, definitely. Playing more live shows is one of my biggest goals this year! They have to be an experience that people will remember forever though. People should feel something when seeing me live. Everything from sound to stage design should be carefully thought out and curated. I’m hoping to have a band on stage with me soon too. There’s nothing like live music.

Projection mapping is something I would love to get into as well. It would be tight to display cool shit during my sets. Just a lot of next level shit. I’m really into technology too so maybe incorporating that into my shows somehow. I’ll have to get with Yung Jake on some shit.

On the live show topic, what have been the best concerts you’ve gotten the chance to see?

Well my first real concert was Kanye and Jay Z’s WTT tour in 2011. Their production was insane! This was hands down the best concert I’ve ever been to in my entire life, maybe because it was my first but yeah. Their shit had fire dog, real fire! Then me and a friend went to Kanye’s Yeezus tour in 2013, amazing experience also. The 1975’s shows are pretty well arranged as well but WTT in 2011 definitely takes the cake for best of all time.

They really pushed boundaries and set the bar for a lot of artist. Super out the box shit. I need to come up with stuff like that but on a smaller scale, like how BH had swing sets and grass on stage. I think that was pretty creative and well executed too. I’m so mad I missed Frank at Panorama, I think that would have been the best show of my life had I witnessed it.

As a final question, what is one lesson you would hope to pass one to any creative minded person reading to this currently? What is it you would love for all to understand and believe?

Anything is possible. There is no spoon. Don’t let your mind consume you. Don’t overthink, just do. Regardless if you fall flat, at least you tried. A lot of people won’t accomplish much in their lifetime due to fear, fuck fear. There’s only so much time we have here. Create as much as time will allow. Be a vessel and make an impact. Your work will out live you so make sure it’s good. Post nice things online because your profiles will out live you too. Travel as much as possible. You’ll learn more on road than you will at home. Comfort kills.

I hope this interview inspired you, now go make cool shit.

These kids still have dreams.

Follow Ryan on Twitter and Instagram

Listen on Soundcloud and Spotify

[roscoerackham]

Crimson Tides, Part 4.

This part is kind of a breather, since I’m running up against the point where I have to bring in RP to actually move everything forward (the pains of writing a WoW Story, you know?) So there’s some characterization and squishness here, as well as a bit of plot.

“GAAAAAH!” Roscoe tumbled out of the nest of pillows he was sleeping in, his bones rattling like a panicked wind chime. He clutched his face, the ghost of an imagined flame fading into the darkness of the Meridian’s Hold. He had barely a moment to regain his lucidity before he felt a huge arm grab him by the waist, dragging him back into the makeshift bed. Above him, a ponderous mass of fur and muscle loomed, the sound of its low growl and pounding heartbeat feeling Roscoe’s vision. “Kal! Kal… it’s… it’s okay. Everything’s okay.” The skeleton panted, though his panic had yet to entirely fade. The beast above ceased it’s growling, gently picking Roscoe off the pillows. Roscoe felt Kal’rokh’s tusks brush past his skull before the troll’s lips gently kissed the tip of his forehead. The room was silent for a few moments before the troll spoke. “Ya screamed,” he said, his voice resonating within Roscoe’s chest. Roscoe’s rattling bones began to quiet themselves in response to the troll’s attention. He relaxed, allowing himself to be engulfed by the troll’s embrace. “It… were jus’ a nightmare, Kal. Weren’t nothin’ to be worried about.” Roscoe felt the Drakkari’s skeptical grunt before he heard it, the embrace imperceptibly tightening around him. “…had a lot o’ dem lately,” he grumbled. His voice was laced with a hint of frustration; Roscoe suspected it was because a nightmare wasn’t something he could fight. And it was true. Ever since the ill-fated trip to Booty Bay, Roscoe’s nights had been haunted by terrifying visions. They never began in quite the same way; his dream avatars ran the gamut of naval society, from cabin boys to admirals to tavern wenches. The result, however, was always the same; Roscoe would find himself the victim of that fiendish pirate’s fiery grasp, before the burning pain jolted him to consciousness. It was a cycle that was wearing down on the Bosun’s mental state; something that Kal’rokh had taken notice of. “…Ya know ain’t nothin’ gonna hurt ‘cha while I’m here,” whispered the Drakkari, “Won’t let ‘em.” “I know… I know, Kal.” Roscoe let out a tired sigh. “…I think we should jus… go back to sleep, aye? Got work ta do tomorrow.” The grumbling in the Troll’s chest told Roscoe that Kal was still concerned, but he seemed to acquiesce to the skeleton’s request for more sleep. He slowly returned to his sprawled out position on the pillows, an arm wrapped protectively around the pirate. Roscoe listened as the Drakkari’s breathing slowed to a regular rhythm, and the territorial growls faded into snores. But Roscoe didn’t go to sleep. He waited until Kal’rokh was well and truly unconscious before silently slipping out from his grasp. He stepped quietly through the small corner of the hold they had claimed as their sleeping quarters, grabbing a lantern from the wall to light his way. Away from the sanctuary of Kal’s body heat, Roscoe could feel the cold seep into his bones. It seemed to plague the hold on even the warmest nights, though the crew was mostly too dead or too Drakkari to pay it much mind. Still, he wouldn’t be up for long, as the faint light of the lantern soon fell onto what he was looking for; a small sack near the bed, on top of which lay a pair of ornate, gold inlaid swords. His father’s swords. The light glinted off the blade, which had gone slightly tarnished from years of use. Roscoe sighed, “Wha’ would dad think o’ me, actin’ like this? All spooked by a bloody dream…” His father was never one for such cowardice. Of course, his father wasn’t much for piracy either. He was a Kul Tiran Sailor, who found himself laying his roots down in Stormglen after being smitten by his mother. This combination of Gilnean stubbornness and nautical fortitude resulted in a man with little patience for Roscoe’s boyhood fantasies. Roscoe sighed as he pushed the blades aside, opening the drawstrings on his bag. Who cared what a probably dead man thought anyway? The sack was filled with small trinkets and gadgets; lucky rabbits feet, preserved four leaf clovers. He grumbled as he dug through the bag, before pulling out a book; The Sea Cook: A Story for Boys. He idly flipped through its pages, smiling a bit at the delicately written inscription on the inside cover. “Dear Roscoe, I know how much you’re fond of pirate stories, even if your father doesn’t let you read them. I asked my father to buy this for you during his last trip to Dalaran! He even had it enchanted to be waterproof in case you fall into the river again. Happy Birthday to my Best Friend, Malcolm.” Roscoe couldn’t help but chuckle a bit at this. That enchantment definitely held up; the book and the swords were among the only two possessions from his old life he didn’t lose in the shipwreck that killed him. “Heh, Ma always said tha’ th’ best way o’ chasin’ away a bad dream were to replace it with a good story…” He chuckled. But as he tucked the book under his arm, he felt a small scrap of paper slip from between its pages. He kneeled down to pick it up, only to freeze in shock as it came into the lantern light. It was a scrap from an old holy book (Roscoe was not a devout enough follower of the light to recognize it), defiled with a smear of dark ink. “…Th’ Black Spot?” He snatched the paper off the ground. “...Is someone playin’ a bloody prank on me? I really ain’t in th’ mood right now. I…” He paused as the paper came into clearer view. That ink wasn’t black; it was a deep crimson. Roscoe brought the paper up to the former location of his nose, catching the faint, metallic whiff of blood. He tossed the paper to the ground like it had just transformed into a particularly venomous spider, eying it with a mix of fear and suspicion. “…It’s jus’ a joke.” He muttered. “People be messin’ with me. Someone read me book, heard about tha’ Black Spot thing an’ wha’ happened in Booty Bay, thought it’d be funny. Ain’t no one really uses th’ bloody Black Spot…” He let out a nervous chuckle, finding his own explanation satisfying enough. He made a mental note to sic Kal on whoever was responsible the next day, and started striding back toward the nest. He was about halfway there before he paused midstride, before turning around and grabbing his swords. Just in case. Then, with his book in hand, his lantern dimmed, and his swords at the ready, he leaned against the troll’s massive form and settled in for the rest of the night. In his distraction, he failed to notice the blood stained scrap of paper smolder away into a small pile of ash.

[thatdamnraccoon]

I hope it's not too much to ask but I'd love to see all your answers to that long list of questions!

1: when you have cereal, do you have more milk than cereal or more cereal than milk? - answered2: do you like the feeling of cold air on your cheeks on a wintery day? - occasionally 3: what random objects do you use to bookmark your books? - cards among other things4: how do you take your coffee/tea? - I just like to drink sweet tea5: are you self-conscious of your smile? - Yes6: do you keep plants?- no7: do you name your plants? - no8: what artistic medium do you use to express your feelings? - writing i guess.9: do you like singing/humming to yourself? - yes10: do you sleep on your back, side, or stomach? - used to sleep on my stomach, but I sleep on my sides now11: what’s an inner joke you have with your friends? - Doom House12: what’s your favorite planet? - Earf13: what’s something that made you smile today? - this 14: if you were to live with your best friend in an old flat in a big city, what would it look like? - it would look like a house in a big city15: go google a weird space fact and tell us what it is! - Did you know Boyhood took 12 years to make?16: what’s your favorite pasta dish? - 17: what color do you really want to dye your hair? - none18: tell us about something dumb/funny you did that has since gone down in history between you and your friends and is always brought up. - 19: do you keep a journal? what do you write/draw/ in it? - not at the moment20: what’s your favorite eye color? - Blue’s okay. I like brown too21: talk about your favorite bag, the one that’s been to hell and back with you and that you love to pieces. - I don’t have one22: are you a morning person? - I start work around 9ish so yeah23: what’s your favorite thing to do on lazy days where you have 0 obligations? - play the vidya games24: is there someone out there you would trust with every single one of your secrets? - there are maybe one or two people25: what’s the weirdest place you’ve ever broken into? - a church26: what are the shoes you’ve had for forever and wear with every single outfit? - I don’t know what brand they are, but I like mine27: what’s your favorite bubblegum flavor? - plain old bubble gum28: sunrise or sunset? - sunrise29: what’s something really cute that one of your friends does and is totally endearing? - they don’t live near me anymore, but I had this one friend with a really adorable smile.30: think of it: have you ever been truly scared? - Yes, plenty of times31: what is your opinion of socks? do you like wearing weird socks? do you sleep with socks? do you confine yourself to white sock hell? really, just talk about socks.- socks are okay, I wear black socks sometimes, and I occasionally sleep with them on32: tell us a story of something that happened to you after 3AM when you were with friends.- we went walking early in the morning33: what’s your fave pastry? - Pop tarts?34: tell us about the stuffed animal you kept as a kid. what is it called? what does it look like? do you still keep it? - I never really had any as a kid. I have a little plush raccoon along with Mega Man now35: do you like stationary and pretty pens and so on? do you use them often? - Not really36: which band’s sound would fit your mood right now? - Talking Heads37: do you like keeping your room messy or clean? - bit of both38: tell us about your pet peeves! - already answered this one39: what color do you wear the most? - I don’t really have a specific color40: think of a piece of jewelry you own: what’s it’s story? does it have any meaning to you? - i don’t wear jewelry 41: what’s the last book you remember really, really loving? - The Disaster Artist42: do you have a favorite coffee shop? describe it! - not really43: who was the last person you gazed at the stars with? - Can’t think of the last time I’ve done that44: when was the last time you remember feeling completely serene and at peace with everything? - Tuesday45: do you trust your instincts a lot? - No46: tell us the worst pun you can think of. - KNIFE to see you47: what food do you think should be banned from the universe? - Mayo.48: what was your biggest fear as a kid? is it the same today? - I used to be scared of mushrooms.49: do you like buying CDs and records? what was the last one you bought? - Occasionally. last CD I bought was some Peter Gabriel cd50: what’s an odd thing you collect? - movie tickets?51: think of a person. what song do you associate with them? - In Your Eyes52: what are your favorite memes of the year so far? - I don’t think I had any53: have you ever watched the rocky horror picture show? heathers? beetlejuice? pulp fiction? what do you think of them? - I’ve seen them all and I fucking LOVE Heathers. Rocky Horror Picture Show is great too 54: who’s the last person you saw with a true look of sadness on their face? - probably my mom55: what’s the most dramatic thing you’ve ever done to prove a point? - i dunno56: what are some things you find endearing in people? - I love to see people laugh57: go listen to bohemian rhapsody. how did it make you feel? did you dramatically reenact the lyrics? - it makes me feel like playing Phoenix Wright. I do occasionally 58: who’s the wine mom and who’s the vodka aunt in your group of friends? why? - none as far as I know. I have an aunt that’s possibly a methhead59: what’s your favorite myth? - 60: do you like poetry? what are some of your faves? - it’s okay i gyess61: what’s the stupidest gift you’ve ever given? the stupidest one you’ve ever received? - answered this one before62: do you drink juice in the morning? which kind? - no63: are you fussy about your books and music? do you keep them meticulously organized or kinda leave them be? Pretty much leave them be64: what color is the sky where you are right now? - It’s dark outside65: is there anyone you haven’t seen in a long time who you’d love to hang out with? - Yes, plenty of people but especially one in Michigan 66: what would your ideal flower crown look like? - I dunno67: how do gloomy days where the sky is dark and the world is misty make you feel? - depends68: what’s winter like where you live? - It barely snows around here69: what are your favorite board games? - there was this monopoly game I had as a kid that had dinosaur pieces70: have you ever used a ouija board? - no71: what’s your favorite kind of tea? - sweet72: are you a person who needs to note everything down or else you’ll forget it? - yeah73: what are some of your worst habits? - I’m pretty bad at eye contact and I apologize a lot74: describe a good friend of yours without using their name or gendered pronouns. - 75: tell us about your pets! - my cat Fritz is fucking awesome. I shared pictures of him on here before76: is there anything you should be doing right now but aren’t? - sleeping77: pink or yellow lemonade? - no78: are you in the minion hateclub or fanclub? - eh79: what’s one of the cutest things someone has ever done for you? - 80: what color are your bedroom walls? did you choose that color? if so, why?81: describe one of your friend’s eyes using the most abstract imagery you can think of. - bambi eyes82: are/were you good in school? - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEE83: what’s some of your favorite album art? - Indiscreet is pretty good, Oh No It’s Devo is a guilty pleasure of mine84: are you planning on getting tattoos? which ones? - not at the moment85: do you read comics? what are your faves? - not at the moment86: do you like concept albums? which ones? - yeah. If The Wall is a concept album, that one was good87: what are some movies you think everyone should watch at least once in their lives? - Clue, Heathers, Dumb and Dumber, Blade Runner, Hot Fuzz, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs88: are there any artistic movements you particularly enjoy? - not really89: are you close to your parents? - I’d say so90: talk about your one of you favorite cities.91: where do you plan on traveling this year? - to see my friends92: are you a person who drowns their pasta in cheese or a person who barely sprinkles a pinch? - huh?93: what’s the hairstyle you wear the most? - the short haircut94: who was the last person you know to have a birthday? - one of my coworkers95: what are your plans for this weekend? - well, mostly working96: do you install your computer updates really quickly or do you procrastinate on them a lot? - quickly97: myer briggs type, zodiac sign, and hogwarts house? INTP, Gemini, and I dunno, Hogwarts?98: when’s the last time you went hiking? did you enjoy it? - can’t remember, and i probably did99: list some songs that resonate to your soul whenever you hear them. - Elastic Heart, Nobody Home, 100: if you were presented with two buttons, one that allows you to go 5 years into the past, the other 5 years into the future, which one would you press? why? - in the future. 

[gyrlversion]

10 Pictures That Will Redefine Your Expectations Of Gender

Soraya Zaman

“Caden is a beautiful and spiritual soul. He has an amazing calm way about him that shouldn’t be mistaken for shyness.”

Soraya Zaman is an Australian-born photographer whose work often highlights concepts surrounding gender and sexuality. As a queer nonbinary person who identifies with the pronouns they/them, Zaman’s work carries an added vitality and a deeply personal connection to their subjects and their subject’s stories.

Zaman’s new book, American Boys, is a collection of portraits capturing a state of flux — not just in terms of gender, but in lifestyle, location, and mentality. Zaman spoke with BuzzFeed News about their journey to produce this book and the importance of visibility among the gender nonbinary community today.

Soraya Zaman

“Aodhán identifies as a trans man and also as ‘Two Spirit’ within the Native American culture and comes from the Cherokee. He taught me that before colonization, there were no labels for gender-nonconforming indigenous people.”

How would you describe your book American Boys?

American Boys is a portrait series of 29 transmasculine individuals from big cities to small towns across the USA captured at distinct stages of their transition. Each series is accompanied by first-person accounts from conversations we had together.

These images show a glimpse into everyone’s life at a specific moment in time. Capturing their personality, their honesty, beauty, vulnerability, strength, and so on. They are affirmative images of everyone, and it is work that informs and expands upon understandings of gender identity outside of the binary and is real and validating.

American Boys looks to challenge people’s own perceptions of traditional binary gender roles.

Where did the portrait series begin for you, and when did you feel it was complete?

This project began back in the summer of 2016. At the time, I was looking to explore expressions of transmasculinity, as it was something personal to me and my own feelings and journey of gender identity. It didn’t take me long to realize that honoring and sharing stories, and validating and centering everyone I met and photographed in an affirmative way, was really important, especially in the now-changing political climate. There isn’t a lot of transmasculine representation in the media, and I wanted to create something that took these important narratives out of online spaces and put them into something more permanent.

Honestly, I don’t think this series is complete! The transmasculine community is rich, diverse, and deep — 29 people cannot adequately represent any community. There is definitely more to say and share, and I’m looking to do a second book.

Soraya Zaman

“Chella is an artist, writer, storyteller, and role model to many in the trans, nonbinary, and queer community. He’s also deaf, but in no way does this slow Chella down.”

How did you meet your subjects?

I discovered everyone in this project through Instagram. I mostly sorted out people who were using their online platform to express what was happening in their lives in an interesting way. To me, they were natural storytellers with a willingness to share for good or bad. That resonated with me.

I reached out over DM to see if they were interested. It was also important for me to feature transmasculine lives all over the country and to not just represent people who live in New York and LA and other places typically thought of as queer hubs. There is an extra level of bravery required to live and exist as a trans person in smaller towns where community and safety can be harder to find.

How important do you believe nonbinary representation is in the media?

For so long, we’ve all just been fed the same cisgender, heteronormative view of the world. When I was a kid, there was nothing in the media that reflected back to me how I see myself. The binary gender roles that have been constructed by the Western world confine us in a way that doesn’t leave any room for nuance or complexity. These rigid binary ideologies of what is expected are dangerous, oppressive, and toxic to trans and nonbinary people.

Soraya Zaman

“Lazarus laughed with me about having basically been every letter in ‘LGBTQ’ and now just wants to be identified as a unicorn.”

We are asked to fit into a box that ultimately can never contain our multitudes. It’s really only recently that we have begun to see queer, trans, and nonbinary people represented in a way that doesn’t feel tokenistic. So this work is personal to me because it forms part of the current conversation on expanding gender expectations and is contributing in a positive way. It allows people to be seen and feel proud of who they are, something that was missing for me in my youth.

What do you hope people will take away from these images?

The project is an intentional call to the nostalgic, internalized idea of American boyhood and the notion that masculinity belongs exclusively to cis men.

I hope that it helps people unpack the belief that gender identity must align with one’s sex assigned at birth and move away from these restrictive categories of gender. It’s also about an affirmative centering of transmasculine identity. I hope that people take the time to not only look at the images but also read the personal accounts. If people can’t “see” themselves in any of the images, then perhaps they can find a shared experience in some of the stories.

I want people to know that they are not alone in their journey. We are all in this together forging unique identities and the best possible lives for ourselves all across the country and globe, and there is power in that. Hopefully it helps move us all closer to a culture that welcomes, validates, and provides safety for all identities.

Soraya Zaman

“Russel is kind and sweet. He has a gentle way about him, although he told me that he hasn’t always been this way. Feeling dysphoria used to make him an emotional wreck, angry at the world, and he would get triggered by small things and lash out. There was a point though where he just kind of found more peace and got focused on bringing in positive things and how far he’s come, rather than thinking about how he maybe wasn’t where he wanted to be yet.”

Soraya Zaman

“Rufio! What an amazing bundle of body-building-bear–like brilliance! Rufio is so full of life and spirit. He’s also a staunch feminist, especially with his experience of white male privilege that came with passing.”

Soraya Zaman

“Elijah is a kind and compassionate quiet achiever. He grew up in South Texas in a Christian Baptist family. When he finally came out to his mother, she knew that their family might attack him with scripture claiming that being transgender is against God’s will. So they both studied the Bible and found verses to debunk what they might throw at him.”

Soraya Zaman

“When I met Justin, he was at a number of beginnings. He was beginning his life after top surgery, which he had one week earlier, and was about to start college. Justin was excited to leave his school days behind where he lived under the radar, quiet, and kept to himself, which really isn’t Justin at all. He’s actually very funny and well-spoken, self-confident, and embracing leadership roles both as a member of the Quaker community and at the LGBTQ center in Richmond, where he established a trans people of color group.”

Soraya Zaman

“Emmett is a transgender Mormon and a self-proclaimed rebel in his own way. Emmett has had to reconcile his faith in the Lord with his gender identity, and the road has not been easy.”

Soraya Zaman

“When I hung out with Jaimie, who btw is an incredible musician, he spoke to me about his experience with back-handed compliments. People saying to him, ‘Wow, you’re so hot…for a trans guy! Even I’d have sex with you!’ — like he should be especially honored these people find him attractive.”

To pick up your copy of American Boys, visit daylightbooks.org.

Click here for more photo stories from BuzzFeed News.

The post 10 Pictures That Will Redefine Your Expectations Of Gender appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress http://www.gyrlversion.net/10-pictures-that-will-redefine-your-expectations-of-gender/

[preserving-ferretbrain]

This song is why

by Jamie Johnston

Friday, 11 June 2010Dar Williams' When I was a boy inspires a mixture of analysis and over-sharing.~I had a couple of friends round for dinner the other day and one of them (who is amused by how I think the internet is full of amazingness) asked me what was amazing on the internet at the moment, and I showed them Tiger Beatdown, and there was a bit of 'Oh, er, feminism? Is that... I mean... surely that's a bit... why?' And I answered... in song! Well, no, that makes it sound like my life is a musical, which I'm sad to say is not the case. What I did was I played them When I was a boy by Dar Williams:

Because that, at the moment, is the most complete and coherent and honest answer I can give if someone asks me why I'm trying to be a feminist.

I had never heard of Dar Williams, let alone this song, before I saw it casually mentioned in some blog or other and, as I often do when I see music I've never heard of being casually mentioned in some blog or other, I looked it up on Spotify to discover whether it was any good. I found it (not quite this version, actually, but the one from the Radio Woodstock 25th anniversary album, which remains my favourite version (

1

)), and it started playing, and I carried on reading and clicking stuff and whatever, and really didn't follow what it was about; but there was something compelling in it, and when it finished I felt I needed to hear it again. So I closed everything else down and played it again and properly listened to it, and wept.

As an answer to the sort of 'Why?' that really means 'How did it come about?', this song is an incomplete answer. A more complete answer would perhaps start with some of the

Minority Warrior

stuff here on Ferretbrain, would get a jump-start with

Fugitivus on rape

, and would certainly include Tiger Beatdown as well (

2

); an even more complete one would go back over the many conversations and interactions I've had with female friends over the years that suddenly began to flash through my memory as I read that Fugitivus post and thought, 'Oh god, how could I have so completely failed to understand?' (

3

). But, actually,

When I was a boy

would still be a very major part of any answer, for a simple and important reason. By the time I heard it there had already been feminist writing that had made me think, 'Oh yes, actually that is quite iffy', and there had already been feminist writing that had shocked me, and there had already been feminist writing that had made me feel ashamed, and there had already been feminist writing that had made me feel joyful, and there had already been feminist writing that had made me angry about oppression, but there had never been feminist writing that made me feel (even if only for five minutes) desolate and heartbroken and like I just couldn't bear for the world to be this way. In other words, this song was what changed feminism from an option into a necessity.

It's also an incomplete answer - even more incomplete, in fact - to the sort of 'Why?' that means 'For what reason, for whose sake?' Even at this very early stage of exploration I've absorbed enough to see that

When I was a boy

is by no means a comprehensive catalogue of gender oppression. It isn't hard to think of umpteen reasons to be a feminist that are arguably more 'Important' than anything Williams describes here: endemic rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo, endemic apology for and dismissal of rape in the democratic constitutional monarchy of the UK, the wage gap and the double shift in the US, denial of women's suffrage in Saudia Arabia, and so on and depressingly on. But this isn't a song about every single way women are oppressed: it's a very personal song about a young fair-skinned comfortably well-off first-world woman who could be one of your friends or someone you passed on the street yesterday (

4

). And, you know what, within those limits it actually covers a great deal: the threat of harrassment and rape ('it's not safe') and the way that very threat becomes a way of making women dependent on men for protection ('I need to find a nice man to walk me home'); the way society tries to make women show off their bodies for the enjoyment of men ('more that's tight means more to see') and also tries to mark those same bodies as obscene ('my neighbour came outside to say, "Get your shirt"'); the way gender norms are both imposed from outside ('the signs say less is more') and internalized ('I could always cry, now even when I'm alone I seldom do'); the way we sometimes feel we can't even admit that we don't want to be the way we are ('it's a secret I can keep').

But covering a lot of bases isn't what makes this song so powerful. My grasp of musical theory is even more tenuous than my grasp of feminist theory, but here are a few musical things we can notice. Notice how it starts with various warm and slightly sparkly chords (

5

), matching in each of the first two verses the descriptions of the singer's (

6

) joyfully boyish childhood; and then how it moves to a barer set of two less richly harmonized chords as she moves to the present (leaving the party or standing in the clothes-shop or confessing the missing part of herself), then back to the warmer sound for 'when I was a boy...'. And notice, in particular, the discordant pair of notes plucked loudly just before that first transition ('and I remember that night'), disorientating the ear and wrenching the song for a moment out of the realm of ordinary chords entirely (

7

). And notice the way that the main guitar line roams up and down the scale in quick wave-like arpeggios, and then how during those sadder minor passages the little in-between notes (semi-quavers, possibly?) drop out and leave an unfulfilled two-tone alternation coinciding with the parts of the lyric that most strongly express the sense of a flatter, less complete life. And notice how the words 'when I was a boy' are held back until just after the beat before they canter exultantly up the scale and jump off the end just as the guitar slides up to the next chord. And notice how at the moments when the words move from memory to present sad reflexion ('I don't know how I survived'; 'I know things have got to change') the previously wandering melody rises to a high note and sticks there on that same note for the whole line, as if Williams has suddenly hit the (glass?) ceiling and has nowhere to go. And notice how the parts of the tune that largely correspond to descriptions of the past (when she was a boy) are mostly lower (more 'masculine') in pitch, whereas the parts in the present are higher-pitched (more 'feminine'). And, keeping hold of that last point in your mind, notice how, in a musical tradition (folk / pop / country / whatever) in which a rise in pitch usually signals the singer accessing a new level of power or intensity (e.g. just about any song you can think of), this song is constructed and pitched so that the lower sections (which are also mostly the brighter-chord sections, which are also mostly the sections with the most harmonically rich guitar-figures, which are also mostly the sections where the singer's voice sounds more 'masculine', which are also mostly the sections in which she remembers her 'boyhood') are firmly in the centre of Williams' vocal range and so sound strong and rich and resonant, while the higher sections (which are also mostly the harmonically more dissonant sections, which are also mostly the sections with the flat and incomplete-sounding accompaniment, which are also mostly the sections where the singer's voice is more 'feminine', which are also mostly the sections where she's in her heavily 'feminized' present) are just a bit too high and make her voice breathy and weak. And, with all that in mind, notice how the very highest notes of each verse - the ones where Williams sounds weakest - are in the final lines of the verse, where the rhythm of the vocal line becomes halting and uncertain, emphasizing the singer's capitulation and undermining her inner defiance: 'and you... can walk... me home... but I was a boy too'; 'but I... am not... forgetting... that I was a boy too'; 'and I... have lost... some kindness... but I was a girl too'.

And the lyric. Oh, reader, the lyric. The opening invocation of

Peter Pan

, which both instantly reminds most of us of our own childhoods (which is when we first encountered

Peter Pan

) and tells us that we're hearing about the singer's childhood (because we know Peter Pan only visits children) (

8

), as well as placing the song in the context of a literary work that has some pretty complex stuff going on with childhood and gender (too much to go into here). The telegraphic account of 'liv[ing] a whole life in one night', like a verbal action montage, enlivened by the repetition of sprightly 'L' and 'I' sounds, and rounded off with the heart-warming equality, reciprocity, solidarity of 'we saved each other's lives out on the pirate deck'. The contrast between the you-and-me-against-the-world intimacy of that Neverland adventure and the world-against-me loneliness of what follows, with its blank and anonymous 'some friends' and 'somebody tell[s] me'. It's so much about contrasts, this lyric. One that runs right through is between abstraction and particularity: the passages describing the singer's childhood are composed almost entirely of specific details, images, events (climbing, riding a bicycle, catching fireflies, 'grass-stained shirt and dusty knees'), giving them immediacy and substance, while the present-day passages are much more general and generic (for it's clear that the scenes leaving the party, standing in the clothes-shop, the 'lonesome awful day' are not unique occasions but things that happen quite often), creating a sort of repetitiveness and sameness. Similarly, the childhood passages are full of agency, of first-person active verbs ('I learned to fly, I learned to fight'; 'climbed what I could climb upon'; 'riding topless, yeah, I never care who saw' (

9

)), while the present-day sections are much more passive or third-person ('I hear somebody tell me'; 'walk me home'; 'the signs say'; 'they've got pills to sell'). The linguistic contrasts underline the main device of the whole song, which is of course the rapid switching between past and present. The frequency of this alternation - back and forth at least twice in every verse - means that, once the pattern is established, one hears every section while still retaining a strong memory of the previous and a strong premonition of the next. This makes every joyful return to childhood also sad because it's lost, and makes every glimpse of the present even sadder for coexisting with a contrasting image of the past.

And I haven't even talked about the central metaphor: 'when I was a boy'. So simple and direct, so eloquent and challenging. So eloquent and challenging, in fact, because it isn't really a metaphor at all, and that's the point. It isn't literally true that the singer was ever physically male - I think that's fairly clear from the line 'I said I was a boy; I'm glad he didn't check'. But if gender consists (at least to a great extent) in behaving and having one's behaviour interpreted in certain ways that are strongly associated with physical maleness or femaleness ('he behaves like people with male bodies do or should so he must be a boy'), then in behaving like a boy the singer literally was a boy. If, on the other hand, we flip that round and see gender as a matter of having one's sexed body interpreted as necessarily or probably implying certain types of behaviour ('he looks physically male so he can expected to behave like, and assumed to be, a boy'), then in growing up and becoming visibly physically female the singer becomes a woman, regardless of her own wishes and behaviour. In short, without any kind of conscious or voluntary transition, it is literally true that the singer used to be a boy and is not a boy now. That's why the non-metaphor of 'when I was a boy' is dynamite: the simple use of that word 'was', rather than 'was like' or some other less uncompromising phrase, exposes the fact that socially constructed gender is so crushingly powerful that it has literally changed the singer's identity against her will and based on nothing but her physical appearance. The fallacy of essentialism is rejected: it's clear that she doesn't feel that she's changed, and indeed she hangs on tightly to the memory of 'the other life I lived'. The only things that have changed are things beyond her control, namely her body and the way other people unthinkingly treat her because of it. And I should say here that I don't think it's necessary or even really satisfactory to read this song as about transgender or to see the singer as a nascent or potential transgendered man (though there may well be much in the song that will speak especially to trans people). The singer's 'other life' as a boy doesn't imply that she wasn't also a girl, except in as much as it rejects the distinction between the two. The point, rather, is that as a child she could be both at the same time, or sometimes one and sometimes the other, and - crucially - it didn't really matter: 'you were just like me and I was just like you'. The sadness of the contrast between past and present is one of loss. It isn't sadness that she once had A and now has B; it's sadness that she once had A and B, and one has been taken away.

Because it isn't anything as pedestrian as a nostalgia song, this song. It isn't about how everything was so much better when the singer was a child. That sort of nostalgic exercise generally has at its core the idea that somehow being a child is in itself better: one was more carefree, or more loved, or more innocent, or whatever. Childhood is fetishized as some kind of ideal state. But the singer of

When I was a boy

doesn't want to be a child again: she wants to be an adult who can be herself fully. The importance of childhood is that it was a time when she was allowed to do that; now she is no longer. So the value of her childhood now is as a way to access a certain inner wholeness that's still there even if it can't be expressed; memory is act of resistance: 'I am not forgetting that I was a boy too'. In a sense she's lucky, for although she would perhaps be 'happier' and less troubled (like the person in Plato's cave) if she had no such memories, they also give her a source of strength that isn't so readily available to someone who's so fully internalized her (or his) constructed gender that she (or he) isn't even aware of it. Lucky, but also frustrated and sad. And weary.

That weariness comes across most strongly in the final verse, which begins by evoking the constant, low-level drain on the singer's emotional resources that must (I can only imagine) come from an ordinary day full of ordinary little oppressions (

10

). And whenever I sing this song quietly to myself, if it hasn't already brought a tear to my eye before the last verse, this is the line I always choke on: 'And so I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived, and I say, "Now you're top gun: I have lost and you have won."' Can there be anything more heartbreaking to a man with any heart at all than the thought that your female friends and relatives might, even only in brief moments, feel like your defeated opponents? And then Williams does something extremely generous and important: 'And he says, "Oh, no, no, can't you see? When I was a girl..."' It's generous because this man's reply could, and in the comments thread of any feminist blog probably would, be treated (quite reasonably) as derailing and possibly also mansplaining (

11

). It's important because it makes a sketch of how sexism diminishes women (which is already a massive and vital point to make) into a sketch of how sexism diminishes everyone. In Kate Millett's phrase, 'each personality becomes little more, and often less, than half of its human potential' (

12

). The song invites women and men to recognize one another as mutually (though not equally) disadvantaged by current ideas of femininity and masculinity, and to remember that 'you were just like me and I was just like you'.

It's hard, in the end, to say why

When I was a boy

affects me so strongly. It isn't because I relate especially strongly to the man in the last verse: I was never that much into flowers, and have I mentioned that I cry sometimes, for example when listening to this song? Ahem. And the rest... well, maybe. It's true, at any rate, that I'm lucky like the singer of this song: lucky to have had parents who gave me a dolls' house as well as Transformers, to have made it through nearly thirty years without ever being compelled to take the slightest interest in football, to have grown up with female friends playing make-believe games that could happily include princesses and robots and (like

Peter Pan

) pirates and fairies together. And this song does sometimes make me think of one of my oldest friends, and how for the first however many years of our lives our different sexes had literally no impact whatsoever on our friendship, and how we're somehow more distant now, and how I remember her once saying to me, when we were both just into double digits, that she liked having me as a friend because with me she could do things that boys liked doing, which surprised me because I'd rather thought of her as someone with whom I could do things that girls liked doing. But I don't think it's really very much to do with whether I relate this song to my own life or identify with anyone in it. It's perhaps the opposite: it's the way this song so so powerfully conveys an experience that I've never had and makes me realize how unfair that experience is and how very much I wish nobody had it. Which is a pretty impressive thing for a guitar and a voice to do in five minutes. I've tried to pick out some of the ways the music, the performance, and the lyric do it, but I'm no music critic, and in the end I just don't know. I can say, though, if anyone asks why this stuff matters to me, this song is why.

Notes

1

· I can't find it on the internet but if you have Spotify it's

here

.

2

· Indeed Tiger Beatdown's

Ladypalooza festival of music criticism

is probably what set me unconsciously composing this article in my head before I noticed that's what I was doing. (Yes, I started writing this about a month ago! It took me a while to get to grips with the music theory parts, okay?)

3

· And indeed further back still, to my English teacher Miss McLaren (who I realize now was probably the first actual feminist I knew and who I like to imagine deliberately chose to teach at a school for privileged boys in order to do undercover feminism at them without their noticing until years later) and to early memories of my mum complaining about women with paid jobs saying 'I work' as if what she did at home all day wasn't work (which, though she wouldn't have thought of it in these terms, was almost certainly the first critique of patriarchy I ever heard).

4

· Admittedly some of this picture is transferred from Williams herself to the character who 'speaks' the song and aren't particularly supported by the lyric. On the other hand, although it's plainly wrong and unhelpful to treat any song as entirely true of its singer or writer, the characteristics of the person who performs the song do inevitably inform our reading of it. So my reading is informed by knowing what Williams looks like and that she's from North America somewhere, and I think it's a reading that's entirely consistent with the lyric.

5

· Lots of suspended seconds and fourths and added ninths, if I'm not mistaken, which are the sorts of chords that make things sound like the Byrds.

6

· I use 'singer' to mean the character whose words are the words of the song, to avoid possibly wrongly (and at any rate irrelevantly) attributing the experiences and feelings expressed in the lyric to Williams herself. Though it's admittedly a bit less clear-cut than that (see note 3).

7

· The interval between these notes is the

diminished or 'devil's' fifth

, which is frequently used to disrupt tonal harmony and is, by suggestive coincidence, called 'oppressive' by Wikipedia. For noticing the use of this interval in this song and patiently explaining to me how it works, many thanks to Joe Templeton (who suggests the beginning of

Purple haze

by Jimi Hendrix as a good example of this interval): needless to say, any error in what I've written about it here is the result of my misunderstanding the point, and not to be attributed to Joe.

8

· And you can see how effectively it tells us this by noticing that that it's actually the only thing that tells us we're in her childhood, and then noticing that you hadn't noticed that. Apologies if the word 'notice' has now started to sound meaningless through over-exposure.

9

· Here too the vowel-sounds in those lines enhance the effect, for not only are the lines filled with the actual first-person pronoun 'I', they are also heavily populated with that same sound within other words: fly, fight, life, night, lives, pirate.

10

· 'Every day a little death: in the parlor, in the bed; in the curtains, in the silver, in the buttons, in the bread', as Sondheim writes in a slightly different context in

A little night music

. Also, incidentally, notice how Williams' voice wobbles on 'off guard', like a stifled sob. One might think it a bit of improvised styling, but no, it's there in every recording I can find.

11

· Those who don't hang out on feminist blogs much can refer to these definitions:

derailing

;

mansplaining

.

12

· In

Sexual politics

(1969), quoted in Cudd & Andreasen,

Feminist theory: a philosophical anthology

(Blackwell, 2005), page 42. I've amended the punctuation: the text in Cudd & Andreasen says 'each personality becomes little more, and often less than half, of its human potential', which must surely be a typographical error (not the only one in this anthology).Themes:

Music and Gigs

,

Minority Warrior

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

http://puritybrown.livejournal.com/

at 21:58 on 2010-06-11Very well said.

Some years ago I bought a CD single of "Cool As I Am" that had this song and "This Was Pompeii" as B-sides. I remember weeping when I heard "When I Was A Boy" the first time, and playing it over and over again, so that to this day I can sing it from memory (even though I haven't listened to it in a long time, because I can only listen to it in circumstances where I feel comfortable crying). It's a concise illustration of the maxim "the personal is political", an encapsulation of all the reasons why feminism is important

even if

you are an educated white middle-class Westerner with buckets of privilege, a deeply moving personal story, and a beautifully-written song wrapped up in one.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 22:01 on 2010-06-11Wow. What a great read--because I love this song! And something that's funny is that as a woman listening to it doesn't make me emotional *until* that last verse--so the exact opposite of, as you say, feeling like that verse is mansplaining or derailing. I guess because the first two verses don't hit me as hard--I think because they're basically just describing the way things are. Like, all those things are so everyday, everything she says, but for some reason when she makes it about everyone instead of just about these things, changed the whole song for me.

I think especially because there's such a nice contrast between the details (as you pointed out, the childhood sections are all rich in details) between the two. The girl (or should we say "boy") details are all about adventure and independence and invulnerability. The boy details are about beauty, relationships (well, that's not exactly true--but the girl's relationships are defined through the action of saving each other's lives, the boy's through "always talking" and so sharing thoughts and feelings) and vulnerabilty.

Which I think I also liked because it makes it clear, as you say, that it's about having both, not rejecting one for the other. The girl doesn't want to lose the parts of herself that might code female, because that would just be a different version of what she has now--just one that she might not be as aware of because those things aren't valued as much in her society.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 23:40 on 2010-06-11Beautiful and powerful read, Jamie. Thanks.

but I'm no music critic

I disagree. That was some good analysis.

Because that, at the moment, is the most complete and coherent and honest answer I can give if someone asks me why I'm trying to be a feminist.

I don't think you can be a feminist, but you can be an ally to feminism. For a male to say he is a feminist is to appropriate the term, manhandle it and muffle the authoritative voice of feminism:

girls

and

women

(both links are on the same subject: Terry Richardson).

The song invites women and men to recognize one another as mutually (though not equally) disadvantaged by current ideas of femininity and masculinity, and to remember that 'you were just like me and I was just like you'.

What I don't like about the last lines is that it is the man telling her 'hey I got it bad too' and then she doesn't call him out on it. He is of the dominant sex, what's he doing to further the cause to equality except to say we were the same once?

And because the man has the last word, maybe it's Dar Williams saying something, that the narrator in the song is once again shut down or at least quietly and softly oppressed. With your excellent musical analysis of the song, what do you think the music is suggesting?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 23:47 on 2010-06-11I don't gots no purty story about how I done had a political awakening. My mammy just done brought me up right.

That tune be pretty though an it done brought tears to my peepers.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 00:00 on 2010-06-12Oh wow that's a beautiful song, and a really thoughtful post.

To alleviate your mansplaining concerns (or am I now mansplaining myself?)I thought the final verse (which also makes me well up) was in line with a comment made by C.L. Minou over at

Tiger Beatdown

, in which she mentions "the ways that sexism and kyriarchy hurt men too" (even if the damage isn't equivalent to that caused to women). And I definitely feel on firmer (and less mansplain-y) ground saying that it's true that homophobia is similarly harmful to straight guys (whether as perpetrators or victims).

I did wonder though what your thoughts are thoughts are about the depiction of childhood in the song? I'm just not sure if the poignant metaphorical truth about loss of innocence and freedom overlooks the literal reality of childhood, which involves being subjected to incredible pressure to conform by both the adult world and other children (who can be very judgemental). I wonder if the real tragedy isn't what comes after childhood, but rather that childhood is the period during which people are being rapidly made into women (or men as the case may be)? And doesn't the freedom to challenge those roles only come after childhood?

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 00:02 on 2010-06-12

And because the man has the last word, maybe it's Dar Williams saying something, that the narrator in the song is once again shut down or at least quietly and softly oppressed. With your excellent musical analysis of the song, what do you think the music is suggesting?

It could certainly be that, but personally I never took it that way. I take it more as a validation. His gender conditioning might not have led to oppression--there's nothing in his experience that is a parallel to half the things she's talking about, but he doesn't lay claim to those things, only to the basic idea of having once felt free to act in ways that are now considered exclusive to the opposite gender.

I guess to me the guy's verse sounds enough like something he's sharing that he doesn't particularly like to share--she herself is only sharing because she's tired and caught off guard. Especially the fact that his last line is saying that he's lost kindness, which is I would think a criticism of himself. I guess I felt like it was more a validation that he believed her experience rather than just saying that he had it hard too, because there really isn't much hard in his version. He just hasn't "won," if that makes sense.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 00:43 on 2010-06-12

He just hasn't "won," if that makes sense.

It does. And I can see where he's attempting to validate her experience but, to me, it doesn't need any validation especially by the man she's with. I know he's not a bad man, he's self critical and probably a good man. Still, even though he may not have 'won', he is ahead.

I think the song kind of reinforces the cultural norms (as permitted by whitestraightabledcis male dominance) it's lamenting.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:53 on 2010-06-12Oh wow, Jamie, wonderful article and thank you for the song - which, being generally ignorant about everything, I had never heard before. I loved it, and had a little cry to myself over it too.

I can't really articulate which aspects affected me in what ways, but the first verse really touched on something because I suddenly remembered when I was a boy too, and it awakened in me a sort of yearning for simpler, fearless times.

I didn't see the last verse as particularly problematic. I mean, the bulk of the song and the perspective that leads to the final verse is the woman's - I think one can over-literalise the rhetorical impact of "the last word" sometimes. Also I don't think it's so much the man trying to get a seat on the oppression train, as an acknowledgment that these issues affect everyone, and marginalising the experiences of men in the name of feminism is as harmful any other sort of marginalisation. As the man says: everyone is a loser here, because everyone is denied their authentic selves because of the pressure to conform.

Also if that verse wasn't there, the whole song would carry the implication that it is just plain better to be a boy - to be fearless, and climb trees, and get into fights. That would, of course, be not so great actually. The singer is yearning not to be a boy but for the freedom to self-define within her own terms - and the final verse broadens the perspective by reminding us that this can include crying and picking flowers, as well as riding bikes.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:39 on 2010-06-12

Also if that verse wasn't there, the whole song would carry the implication that it is just plain better to be a boy - to be fearless, and climb trees, and get into fights. That would, of course, be not so great actually. The singer is yearning not to be a boy but for the freedom to self-define within her own terms - and the final verse broadens the perspective by reminding us that this can include crying and picking flowers, as well as riding bikes.

Yes, that's a big part of why I need the last verse. For me, I just wouldn't like the song that much without it. It would feel too much like a complaint, and one lacking in awareness. Not that I think the narrator truly wants to be male, but the way she's feeling she's just longing for those particular things. So I am relieved when the other side is brought into it and "female" becomes something other than something acted on and controlled by others.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 17:54 on 2010-06-12Oh no, I've turned Arthur into a hayseed! :)

Er, this reply will be long. Short version: see long version.

Frank

, as to 'feminist' v. 'ally', I'm aware that this is

contested territory

, but it seems to be contested on both sides: arguments against the term 'ally' are expressed

here

by someone who admittedly doesn't identify as a woman, but I have heard the same from women. Interestingly, the Feminism 101 article I linked to in the previous sentence seems to say that the objections to the idea of 'feminist men' come mostly from men, which makes me wonder what happened to the principle of female voices having more authority on these issues. The way I personally apply that principle at the moment (though I'm open to being persuaded in any direction) is that I don't claim either label for myself, and won't consider doing so unless and until I find myself being routinely described with one or the other or both by undisputed feminists. (And in fact I'd do the same at the moment even if there were no dispute about the terminology because I just don't think I know enough or have done enough to claim whatever the appropriate term is.)

Having said that, at the moment I feel more uncomfortable about ever calling myself an ally than about ever calling myself a feminist. One could say that the statement 'I am your ally' is always necessarily a bit of arrogation, and the only things anyone can ever say with full authority are 'I want to be your ally' and (though of course not unilaterally) 'you are my ally'. Maybe that's going a bit far, but maybe not. On the other hand, the word 'feminist' is structured analogously to any number of other '-ist' words that are routinely used and understood to mean 'person who subscribes to a given school of thought'.

Anyway, that may be a discussion for another time and place. In any case, even if it is impossible for a man to be a feminist, I'm perfectly happy with the statement that I'm trying to be a feminist: at worst it's formally analogous to the statement 'I'm trying to perfect', an aspiration that's impossible but probably none the worse for that.

Everyone

, regarding the last verse: I'd pretty much adopt Kyra's answer on this point. In the context of a real conversation, I agree that the singer would have been perfectly entitled to say, 'Well, okay, I sympathise, but please also note that I'm really tired and upset and you've just started your reply with "No no no, can't you see?", which is not very supportive; plus you've then gone on to describe a distinct, though related, problem that is not what I was talking about; plus you still have a lot more going for you than I have; plus what exactly have you done to help me with all this, since you're so sympathetic; plus I've run out of cookies.' And I tried to nod to that in the article. But on balance I think the song itself absorbs and neutralizes the problem. Purely by number of words, the man's experience accounts for only 15% of the song, and more importantly everything he says is there by the permission of, and enclosed within, the singer's narration. It's true that she doesn't come back in her own voice and add anything after it, but her quotation-mark is there after his final word.

And speaking of his final word, I think it's not unimportant that his literal final word is 'you', which returns the focus to the singer. Nor is it unimportant that having said 'you were just like me' (taking himself, and perhaps by implication men in general, as the norm) he immediately reverses it and says 'I was just like you' (comparing himself to a female norm). And, while we're on this last phrase, he doesn't say 'you are just like me and I am just like you', which would be the old 'But men are oppressed too!' line (in which 'too' implies not only 'also' but 'equally' and indeed 'to such an extent that it's unreasonable for you to complain about your oppression because what about mine?'); rather, he says 'you were just like me and I was just like you', i.e. 'the inequality here is not innate or necessary or inevitable', which is of course the point of the song. So although he starts unhelpfully, his comments over all come out as, 'Yes, you're right, and by the way my experience supports your view'.

So I read the construction of the end of the song as Williams actually being quite self-confident and, as I said in the article, generous, by using a male mouthpiece to broaden and sum up the over-all point of the song. On the other hand, as Frank suggests, she may also be making a subtle extra point with the implication that the singer-character herself is so weary from putting up with everything else that she also puts up with the man's intervention in the conversation, even though it has some characteristics of a hijacking as well as of an agreement. Nonetheless I see the song as broadly endorsing what he says (and vice versa).

In musical terms I don't detect any particular clues either way. In all the live versions the guitar does pretty well exactly the same thing under his speech as under the rest of the song; in the studio recording there's a little brass part (or possibly woodwind: I'm terrible at identifying instruments) under the last verse, but that doesn't seem to tell us anything much, and perhaps a hint of extra force in the strum under the 'see' in 'can't you see', which one could read as extra masculinity or as extra interruptiness. The only thing that I do find suggestive is that the instrumental backing doesn't resolve itself to a conclusion at the same time the vocal ends but carries on once more through the section that corresponds to the first four lines of each verse (e.g., in the first verse, 'I won't forget...' to '... pirate deck'). I'd say what that does is to leave the thought hanging, so the effect isn't 'Hurrah, the Man has solved the problem!', as it might be if the music came to an end along with the lyric, but something more like, 'Yes, there's the thing, isn't it? Let's think about that for a while.' It also - and here's where things get very subjective indeed - leaves me personally with the mental image of the singer sitting looking out at the fireflies in the back yard, which is a mental image to which the man, who may or may not be sitting with her, is not terribly relevant. It would be hard to argue that that's a thought the song is in any way designed to leave the listener with, but I do think it's perhaps significant that the instrumental section that's repeated after the end of the vocal is the section that corresponds in the first verse to the Peter Pan adventure, in the second to the topless cycling, and in the third to the awful day (ending, in fact, precisely with the line 'catching fireflies out in the back yard', so perhaps that's why that image sticks in my mind): in other words after the end of the singing the music takes us back to linger on the singer's experience, rather than ending on the man's response.

Andy

, I agree that if there is a problem in the song it is that it does at some point seem to imply that childhood as a whole is a sort of pre-gendered state, which is demonstrably not the case (as one sees from the extremely young age at which studies (can't at the moment lay my googling fingers on a reference, but there was a news story in the last few months) are now showing female babies preferring pink things and male ones blue things, combined with the

evidence

that these colour-preferences vary across time and space in a way that suggests very strongly that they are culturally imposed). But I think I'm inclined to let Williams off the hook for that, at least to some extent. The song does show the process of gendering happening during childhood (especially in the topless cycling episode, but also, more subtly and more sadly, in the line 'I said I was a boy; I'm glad he didn't check', which of course implies (not unjustly) that Peter Pan, and by extension much of the culture that we produce for children, is horrendously sexist and only lets boys have adventures and fight pirates. There's also the interesting question of the singer's mother's attitude: on the one hand, would it have 'scared the pants off' her quite so much if it had been her son climbing stuff? but on the other, is there a joking significance in the fact that we imagine her mother wearing pants (trousers, for those of us in other parts of the Anglophone world) in the first place, in mild defiance of the patriarchy? :) So I think on that score the fault may be more mine than Williams', since I see that the article does largely ignore those aspects and talk about childhood as pretty thoroughly ungendered.

Another reason I'm inclined to give the song a pass on this question is that I'm not sure we're meant to take the depiction of the singer's childhood literally. In the same way that we plainly aren't expected to assume the singer, for all her 'boyish' activities like climbing and cycling and fighting pirates, never did 'girly' things like talking to her mother and picking flowers and crying and being kind, so too I don't think we're meant to imagine that her childhood was as thoroughly infused with ungendered self-determination as perhaps it seems in the song. The thing is that every glimpse of her childhood is mediated through her adult memory, specifically for comparison with the oppressive present. So although it's functioning in the song as a sort of symbol of genderlessness and as a source of emotional support, I don't think that amounts to the song saying that that is what childhood is actually like.

I think part of it also comes down to the thing of this song not trying to be about all women (and men) ever. It speaks to me in part perhaps because my childhood was approximately as ungendered as the singer's: not by any means completely, but just enough that I can compare it to the present as draw pro-feminist conclusions from the comparison. There will be others for whom childhood was much more the site of comprehensive engendering (except that that's a word for something different, but you know what I mean) and is therefore much less an inner source of positivity, and for them adulthood may be the empowering idea because it provides the tools for self-liberation that were denied in childhood. I guess looking at it from that angle

When I was a boy

isn't really saying that childhood is literally or necessarily a time of liberation so much as just using childhood - this particular type of childhood - as a symbol of the equal and full humanity of everyone.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 17:56 on 2010-06-12Seen since writing the above: Sister Magpie's

most recent comment

. Response: yes. :)

permalink

-

go to top

http://alex-von-cercek.livejournal.com/

at 18:37 on 2010-06-12I was always taught that "feminism" meant striving for equality of the genders. That seemed a fine and noble undertaking, but I don't see how you can claim that definition if you can't admit the possibility of male feminists.

I call myself a feminist and not an ally because, well, I don't know you! I might disagree with you on a whole bunch of issues you consider quite important. And you can't claim that feminists always agree on everything, no more than other prefix-ists always agree (which is to say, hardly ever). Also, "ally" seems so very personal, like I'm claiming to be your old and trustworthy brother in arms, like I'm claiming this relationship exists between us where in fact there is none.

If I say I'm a feminist, I'm speaking for myself. If I said I'm an ally, I'd be telling you what I am to you.

On the subject of winning, and how though the man may not have won, he is ahead. He is, but it's like a game of Defcon 5 where you "win" or "are ahead" of the other guy because in the last half hour, 60 million people in his country died in nuclear fire, while your own civilian casualties are barely 30 million.

I mean, you've won, but it's hardly a desirable victory.

...er, don't mind me, I just started hanging around this site because you actually analyzed WH40k novels for their literary merit, and then kind of stuck around.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 18:40 on 2010-06-12On a lighter note, I just can't get past the term Kyriarchy - which, by rights, should mean oppression by me.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 18:42 on 2010-06-12PS:

...er, don't mind me, I just started hanging around this site because you actually analyzed WH40k novels for their literary merit, and then kind of stuck around.

Not at all, you are very welcome here :)

And I'm sure Arthur would agree that, as far as reasons to stick around go, that must be one of the best :D

permalink

-

go to top

http://roisindubh211.livejournal.com/

at 20:42 on 2010-06-12I'm watching the football while I read, so I couldn't listen to the song, but I read the lyrics. And the last part, to me, read like she gets so tired and worn down that her defenses fail, and she admits to this story that she's been hiding- it felt a little scary, like anything can happen to her because she's vulnerable. And instead of attacking, he's secretly "just like you"- he's her ally, because he knows what gets lost too. So it felt hopeful to me, more than anything else- like, if you look, you can find more people who remember and mourn their own loss.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 21:12 on 2010-06-12

On the other hand, the word 'feminist' is structured analogously to any number of other '-ist' words that are routinely used and understood to mean 'person who subscribes to a given school of thought'.

Putting the joke hick accent aside, this is kind of the way I see it. If you consider feminism a philosophy, and "feminists" to be people who adhere to that philosophy (in the same way that "communists" believe in one of the various flavours of communism), then saying "men can't be feminists" is tantamount to saying "men can't accept and believe in these ideas, only women can". That implies that men's brains are just plain wired differently from women's - which I think is a thing called "essentialism", and isn't universally accepted by feminist thinkers.

(Which isn't, of course, to say that if you consider feminism a philosophy you can't criticise men who claim to be feminists but fundamentally just don't get it, or try to mansplain everything. It's like being a middle-class supporter of communism - sure, come to the meetings and wave the red flags, but don't pretend you're a proletarian when you're clearly not.)

On the other hand, you could argue that feminism isn't just another philosophy or school of thought like Marxism or liberalism or whatever, but is an entirely different sort of thing. In which case it might make more sense to deny the "feminist" tag to men.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 21:29 on 2010-06-12@ Arthur: It's complicated a bit because being a socialist is a matter not just of believing certain things but also being committed to certain values and actions. Someone who believed socialism was true but never spoke up or did anything would not be a socialist. I guess you could argue that the privilege that men enjoy makes it difficult or impossible to be a feminist because it would prevent the ideas from translating into action. Somebody could believe feminist ideas but still act and talk in a very sexist way.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 21:31 on 2010-06-12Also, Chloe Angyal just tweeted

'Feminist men are so fucking sexy'

, so after due consideration I've decided to be one of those, thank you very much.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:04 on 2010-06-12

It's complicated a bit because being a socialist is a matter not just of believing certain things but also being committed to certain values and actions. Someone who believed socialism was true but never spoke up or did anything would not be a socialist.

I think they would, at least by the philosophical definition - it's just that they'd also be a hypocrite or a coward or someone just plain compromising for the sake of a quiet life, like anyone who chooses to behave in a manner not in accordance with their beliefs.

Somebody could believe feminist ideas but still act and talk in a very sexist way.

Which makes them a hypocrite, and a deluded idiot who needs to examine their own actions.

Basically, I think men can call themselves feminists if they want to, but it's not necessarily down to them to decide whether they're actually any

good

at the whole feminism thing. See, for example, Jamie's comments about how he's trying to be a good feminist, even if he knows that sometimes he might not be.

I would say that someone who believes in socialism but doesn't speak up or do anything is still a socialist. They're just a crappy socialist.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 00:36 on 2010-06-13@ Arthur: Well, the thing is that just believing a rule or principle to be correct doesn't mean you understand how to apply it. For instance, you may know it's a rule of football that it's a goal when the ball goes through the posts - but what if you're playing casual football with friends in the park and a stranger's dog runs onto the pitch and knocks the ball through the goal? If you say it doesn't count because it was the stranger's dog, it's not because you had agreed on some sort of exception to the rule in advance (It's a goal wen the ball goes through the posts unless it was knocked in by a dog), but rather that you understood the point of the rules (to structure the game to make things more fun). Coming at a system of rules or principles from the outside, you can fail to grasp how to apply them unless you're able to understand the point behind them. The situation of privilege can impede being able to understand the perspective that allows you to apply the principles of feminism correctly, even if you believe them to be correct.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 01:00 on 2010-06-13

That implies that men's brains are just plain wired differently from women's - which I think is a thing called "essentialism", and isn't universally accepted by feminist thinkers.

But isn't that part of the definition of transgender- that the person's brain is one gender while their body is another? If there was no difference between the male and female brain, then surely transpeople wouldn't

exist

, because their brains wouldn't register any difference? Or for a more specific example, there have been cases- I can't remember the names, but I know at least one was in Canada- where a child was born physically male but raised female due to a botched circumcision, and chose to live as a man after being told what had happened. If there was no difference between the male and female brains, then he would have been happy to live as a woman, because he would have identified the way he was raised.

Some feminists do ascribe to the idea that there's no difference between the brains. They're wrong, and they erase transpeople in what they percieve as efforts to prove that men and women are equal. They're doing more harm than good.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 01:02 on 2010-06-13I don't see how this changes the situation though. Someone who believes in feminism, or communism, or football, but doesn't really know how to apply this is a just plain bad feminist, or a bad communist, or a bad footballer.

If privilege sometimes ends up hampering men's ability to do the feminist thing in a situation, then that means then men are going to tend to be less successful at being feminists than women. That doesn't mean they're not feminists - that would imply they didn't

want

to do the right thing, when they might well want to do the right thing but not know what that is. It just mean they're not as good at it as people who aren't blindsided by privilege are.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 01:24 on 2010-06-13@ Arthur: I'd say you need to be able to apply the principles to a certain degree of competence before you merit the label feminist. Sort of like with language - you can only speak the language fluently once you're able to actively and creatively apply the rules you've learned. But it's a moot point about labelling really (see discussion about genre), as long as you accept the difficulties that the privileged male perspective can present to applying feminist principles.

@ Viorica: Are you talking about Julie Bindel? I agree entirely, though I don't think there HAS to be a physiological difference between the brains to justify trans people's gender identities. Even if gender is entirely a social or psychological construct, that doesn't mean it's NOT a building block of someone's identity - there's nothing 'unreal' about it.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 02:00 on 2010-06-13To clarify: I agree with Viorica. Not Julie Bindel.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 02:09 on 2010-06-13*looks up Julie Bindel* She's certainly a good example of the phenomena. As to the physiological versus social causes- I don't think that

can

be it, because otherwise, why wouldn't the buy I mentioned above (I think his name was David something) have ID'd as female? He was raised that way. Besides, the social construsts of gender usually imply extremes- the "manly man" archetype or the woman all decked out in pink- but transpeople often vary within the spectrum of the gender they idenfity as. A transman might not identify with any traditional definition of masculinity yet still consider himself a man. Either way, it should definitely be considered a legitimate identity- on that we're in complete agreement.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 08:46 on 2010-06-13@Andy: I think it is worth linguistically decoupling belief in a particular -ism from someone's ability to live that belief. If saying "X is not a Y-ist" means that X doesn't believe in Y in the first place, and saying "X is not a very good Y-ist" means that X is just plain bad at putting Y-ism into effect, that's surely less liable to confuse than a situation where "X is not a Y-ist"

could

mean that X doesn't believe in Y, or

could

mean that X in fact does believe in Y but is incompetent at putting it into effect.

I could go around calling myself "a believer in feminism" rather than a "feminist", but I suspect a great many people - most likely the majority - would regard the one and the other as being identical anyway. For the same reason I'd question the utility of using "supporter of feminism" or "ally of feminism", because a lot of the time people will reduce that in their heads to "feminist" anyway.

But I agree at this point we're debating semantics.

@Andy Viorica: To be honest I was using "you're saying mens' brains and womens' brains are wired differently" in the sense that "you're saying that on a cold, philosophical level, there are some arguments that men just can't follow and some arguments women can't follow" (which is a point the argument has moved away from when it became clear that neither side believed it).

Obviously, transgenderism is a real phenomenon, obviously on an experiential level the experiences of men and women (trans and otherwise) are going to differ. I'm not enough of a neurologist to comment on actual physiological differences.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 12:19 on 2010-06-13@ Viorica: I'm not going to pretend to be any expert, but I'd guess there are complicated different reasons why someone might legitimately identify as a certain gender. A particular person's personality is socially constructed but so too are the kinds of identities available to them - a Western person couldn't identify along the lines of Eastern gender identities, for instance, or premodern European gender identities. Bindel's point appears to be that, because there is in fact no essence behind gender identities (something backed up by the existence of intergender people, for instance), it's nonsensical to feel that there's a mismatch between your body and your 'real' gender, but of course these gender identities (constructed or not) do form the building blocks of our selves.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 12:24 on 2010-06-13@ Arthur: Now I'm a bit more awake, it suddenly occurs that that Cracked article about women in Red Dead Redemption is a good example of misapplied feminist beliefs. Alternatively, I remember reading that back in Britain's colonial days, men who voted against women's rights at home used feminist arguments to condemn foreign countries as primitive (the same thing happens today with regard to gay rights).

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:21 on 2010-06-13@Andy - All of that is appalling, but it looks to me like a situation where the people involved claim to believe in feminist principles but demonstrably don't, in which case they are not feminists but have deluded themselves into thinking they are, or do believe but are just shit feminists.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:22 on 2010-06-13

But isn't that part of the definition of transgender- that the person's brain is one gender while their body is another? If there was no difference between the male and female brain, then surely transpeople wouldn't exist, because their brains wouldn't register any difference?

I think you're oversimplifying a number of complex issues here, some of them scientific and some of them sociological and gender-political.

This is going to get long, because it's complicated, and like Andy I'm not an expert.

For a start, I'm not sure it's possible to separate "the brain" from "the body" as absolutely as you seem to think. The brain is, after all, part of the body so describing somebody as having a "brain" of one gender and a "body" of another is inherently contradictory. It simply wouldn't be possible for somebody to be "physically male" and yet have a "female brain" because the brain is part of the physical body. It's as contradictory as suggesting that somebody could be "physically male" and still possess ovaries and a uterus. You seem to be using "brain" here as a way of expressing a more nebulous concept of self-identity.

Arguing for the existence of a "male" and "female" brain reduces gender to an observable property of a person's physical body. Saying "this person is male because he has a male brain" is ultimately just as trans-erasing as saying "this person is male because he has a penis". I'd also note that most "male and female brain" studies say very little about actual gender identity, indeed most people who study the differences (if any) between men's and women's brains specifically exclude transpeople from their studies or insist on categorizing them as members of their "biological" sex.

To put it another way, if you tested a trans-man, and found that he had a "female" brain, would that mean that he was a woman? Or is it, in your view, impossible for such a thing to happen? I'd point out that most studies that *do* conclude that there are "male" and "female" brains also point out that some (cisgendered) men have female brains and some (cisgendered) women have male brains, and vice versa. If as you suggest transgenderism has to be explained in terms of the existence of a "male brain" and "female brain" I am not sure how you explain these results.

Or for a more specific example, there have been cases- I can't remember the names, but I know at least one was in Canada- where a child was born physically male but raised female due to a botched circumcision, and chose to live as a man after being told what had happened. If there was no difference between the male and female brains, then he would have been happy to live as a woman, because he would have identified the way he was raised.

You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Off the top of my head I can think of a great many reasons why this guy didn't identify as female, the most obvious of them being that while he was raised female, he was presumably also raised in contemporary western society, and contemporary western society teaches (wrongly) that your gender is what you are born as. Once he found out he was "really" a boy, he would very likely have assumed that it was best to live under his "real" gender.

Adoption might be a good analogy here. If you have two biological children and an adopted child, you wouldn't argue that the adopted child's brain is *structurally different* from the biological children. If the adopted child finds out that they are adopted, however, they are quite likely to consider their adopted parents not to be their "real" parents even though those people raised them. Or they might not. Either way you can't say that it "has to be" something in the brain.

Put simply, gender identity is complicated (as for that matter is identity in general) and reducing it to a single factor is unhelpful, incorrect and (ironically) trans-erasing. Suppose that a conclusive study were to be published tomorrow which proved that men's and women's brains are not structurally different - would you then conclude that transpeople no longer have a valid gender identity?

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 17:55 on 2010-06-13@ Dan: Yes. Exactly.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:26 on 2010-06-13

You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Off the top of my head I can think of a great many reasons why this guy didn't identify as female, the most obvious of them being that while he was raised female, he was presumably also raised in contemporary western society, and contemporary western society teaches (wrongly) that your gender is what you are born as. Once he found out he was "really" a boy, he would very likely have assumed that it was best to live under his "real" gender.

Hmm. But see, in his case he already considered his "real" gender to be male. He just always had people telling him he was wrong, that he was female because that was what his body was and that was what he was socialized to be.

I wouldn't say that his brain was structurally different, but he clearly was born with an inborn *something* that naturally conformed more to behavior people considered "male," and more importantly, with a natural sense of himself as male. And unfortunately, iirc, a lot of this was denied and covered up by his psychologist who wanted him to fit his theory. This also led to the family being ordered to not reveal his original physical gender to him at all costs even when they wanted to tell him the truth because they thought it would be a relief to him.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:30 on 2010-06-13I'm not sure you're entirely understanding me. I'm not saying that the difference between male and female brains are purely physiological. I'm saying that there is a difference, because otherwise no one would ever ID as the gender they weren't assigned to at birth. Since we don't know a lot about how the brain works, it's hard to say exactly what the relationship between the brain and the body is- and how much of what we think and feel is chemical as opposed to sociological- but I don't believe that gender is a purely social construct.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:32 on 2010-06-13Oh, also another thing to consider is hermaphrodites. There is a practice of "choosing" a gender sometimes when a baby is born. I remember in a book I was reading about some of these issues and there was a guy whose mother refused to let them do this. He was giving a talk at a thing for hermaphrodites and he said it was because of his mother standing up for him that he was not standing before them that day as a very angry lesbian.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:34 on 2010-06-13

And unfortunately, iirc, a lot of this was denied and covered up by his psychologist who wanted him to fit his theory.

That was a big part of it too. The case was widely-publicised, and the psychologist involved wanted to make his reputation on it. Plus, the boy didn't only start to ID as male after being told the truth- he always preferred being a boy. He just didn't know why, because he was being purposefully misgendered.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:45 on 2010-06-13

That was a big part of it too. The case was widely-publicised, and the psychologist involved wanted to make his reputation on it. Plus, the boy didn't only start to ID as male after being told the truth- he always preferred being a boy. He just didn't know why, because he was being purposefully misgendered.

Exactly. Iirc, his life was a series of identifying as a boy and having someone tell him, "No no no!" And I remember the kids in his class called him "Bigfoot" because, basically, he didn't move like a girl. Not that it isn't possible for a girl to have the same kind of way of moving, but it really did seem like his behavior was full of millions of little things that people considered "wrong" for a girl.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 19:15 on 2010-06-13@ Viorica:

I'm not saying that the difference between male and female brains are purely physiological. I'm saying that there is a difference, because otherwise no one would ever ID as the gender they weren't assigned to at birth.

I don't think the 'because' clause follows, because the difference doesn't have to be 'in the brains'. It could be a difference at the level of consciousness/selfhood - in the mind - that is a function of the way the person interprets socially constructed identities and roles as applicable or inapplicable to them (on the basis of their sensibilties, traits, physical features, etc.). Their interpretation could differ from that which is imposed on them by other people but that does not mean that the identity itself is not constructed.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 20:25 on 2010-06-13I'm feeling quite squeamish about this chapter of the discussion: it feels like a conversation that's likely to be at best fruitless and at worst, er, worse in the absence of specific knowledge of the state of neuropsychological research and / or first-hand or close second-hand experience of what it's like to be a transgendered person, and I get the impression we have neither of those things here at the moment. So no contribution from me at this stage, really.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 20:44 on 2010-06-13Yes I'm feeling that too. My arguments are hypotheticals about what must or needn't follow if something is the case. Some solid data would be handy.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 21:05 on 2010-06-13To back up the conversation:

People can choose or opt out of various world views (theistic, philosophic, political, etc.) they were born into. Granted, some may experience some emotional difficulty in doing so but that's mostly due to family relations rather than social ones. People can't chose the sex, sexuality, gender identification, race, or the physical and mental ability they are born with though there are surgical procedures like sex reassignments or cochlear implants which can alter one's appearance or deafness. Neither procedure will grant the full sex change (testicles for ovaries or vice versa, to name one example) or complete hearing restoration. (But maybe the scientists will one day find the means to do so, and perhaps that will be the singularity.)

Women, the LGBTQ community, People of Color, Disabled people grow-up in culture that defines them as 'less than' and/or 'other'. A white, straight, abled male can be an ally to all those communities but still say something unintentionally offensive because those men grewup within the same culture with its institutional sexism, racism, homophobia, etc but who aren't as sensitive to the kyiarchal language or images being used within the culture because it didn't hurt them. This isn't a criticism. It's an understandable, self-preservation tactic. People need to be taught to consider others. Allies make mistakes, and if they are true allies they apologize and reflect on their offense in the hopes of recognizing the institutionalized whatever that gave it to them and learn how to be a better, stronger ally. I think this is best done by reading various blogs within the communities one is most interested in being an Ally to as it is not the responsibility of the non-dominant communities to teach the white, straight, abled man about the minority community.

Returning to the male as feminist argument.

Here's the jist of what a feminist friend told me some years ago:

You're anti-rape, but that doesn't make you a rape victim. You don't know what's its like. You might be able to imagine it, the fear and violation, but you haven't experienced it. You can help rape victims: provide legal support, meeting space, or coffee for support groups, but you can't go to the group because you're not a rape victim. In fact, even though you've probably raped no one, you represent the rapist just by having a dick. So you can support rape victim causes and feminist causes, but that support doesn't make you a rape victim or feminist just a friend (ally).

Now, it was only one woman that told me this and she obviously doesn't speak for all feminist, but it smacked me pretty hard at the time and I was a bit butt hurt about it, yet when the hurt subsided I came to see her perspective, and how it relates to other marginalized communities.

Men are not in the community of women like whites aren't in the community of anyone of color.

Men can offer to volunteer for the community of women like whites can do the same for communities of color.

Women to men: thanks, vote for suffrage, that would help out a lot. PoC to whites: write to your House Rep/Senator and demand that he pass the Civil Rights Bill, thanks.

NOW to men: we got this, but you can donate. NUL to whites: we got this, but you can donate.

But I'm willing to be wrong. According to Sarah Palin, she is a feminist, so why not Jamie and Alex?

Apologies for the US-centric references!

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 21:47 on 2010-06-13

According to Sarah Palin, she is a feminist, so why not Jamie and Alex?

Ouch! ;)

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 21:51 on 2010-06-13:D

In good fun!

permalink

-

go to top

http://alex-von-cercek.livejournal.com/

at 22:37 on 2010-06-13I think the analogy loses something when it tries to equate being a rape victim with being a feminist. I think we can all agree that being raped is not a prerequisite for joining the feminist club.

In fact, they're different in a very crucial way - rape only harms the victim, not the perpetrator. I don't believe that it's actually in my best interest to perpetuate the patriarchy. I don't think I'm shooting myself in the foot when I complain about how women are portrayed in media. I think that when and if we achieve actual equality of the sexes on this planet, in a sort of Star Trek-esque future utopia where all ancient irrational prejudices have been wiped out,

I as a white heterosexual European male will be better off than I was before.

Again, yeah, I'm "ahead", but it's not a desirable ahead. We're not all rape victims, but we're all victims (with varied degrees of actual harm incurred) of the patriarchy/kyriarchy/irrational prejudices that fuck up humanity's shit. That's one of the things "When I was a boy" is about, right?

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:44 on 2010-06-13For what it's worth (sorry this is late in coming), my very close friend is transgender, and he and I have talked about it a lot. And what he tells me is that he believes that trans people are meant to be born as whatever gender they identify as but that there was a genetic mishap that happened to make them the wrong gender. In which case, there would be a connection with brain chemistry and gender, I suppose. But it's probably also safe to say that not every trans person has the same experiences/beliefs and there could be multiple reasons for why someone identifies as the opposite of their physical gender that have less to do with science and more to do with social pressures/conditioning. But most trans people (to the best of my knowledge) spend their whole lives feeling like they are in the wrong body. It's something that's there with them from a very, very early age so I feel like there has to be a biological reason for it. But I, like everyone else, am no expert on the subject.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:44 on 2010-06-13Apologies for opening that topic up again, but I felt like it was important....

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:45 on 2010-06-13To be honest, so long as a person's actions have a net positive effect on things, I couldn't care less what they call themselves, so long as they don't use whatever titles they've given themselves as a stick to beat other people with.

So Sarah Palin pretty much fails on every single point there.

Apologies for the US-centric references!

I wonder, in fact, whether there isn't a cultural thing at work here with the "ally" thing. It's not terminology I've seen from many UK sources, and I kind of share Jamie's reluctance to go out and unilaterally declare myself someone's ally - surely it's their call whether I'm an ally or not? It could be we are being terribly English about the whole thing.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:18 on 2010-06-13

I'm saying that there is a difference, because otherwise no one would ever ID as the gender they weren't assigned to at birth

I think we might be talking at cross purposes here, because I think we're talking about two different things.

One is the origins or otherwise of gender identity. This is a Big Serious Complicated Issue and one I'm not remotely qualified to talk about apart from saying "it's really complicated." It's ultimately reductionist to say that it comes from any one source, be that socialization or some currently unknown neurological factor.

The second issue is the concept of "male" and "female" brains - the notion that women's brains innately process information differently from men's. The first thing to say is that the jury is simply out on this. There's no good scientific evidence one way or the other. The second thing to say is that even the studies which *do* support the idea that men and women process information in different ways observe that there is broad variation between the sexes, so a great many men will have "female-type" brains and a great many women will have "male-type" brains, but these people will not self-identify as a member of the other gender. If there *is* a brain-based "root cause" of gender identity, it's got nothing to do with the concept of "brain type" so beloved of gender essentialists.

It's true that there's a line of transphobic apologia which runs along the lines of "transpeople just reinforce the gender binary," which is of course offensive, but it's important not to go down the line of assuming that transgenderism *requires* gender essentialism. To put this in pure I-statements, I personally do not believe that men and women are "wired differentely" or that you can describe a particular person as having a "male" or "female" brain any more than you can describe them as having a male or female heart. I also believe that trans-men really are men, just as much as I am and I do not, personally, see a contradiction in these two positions.

The question of why some people self-identify as a gender different to the one they were assigned at birth is one to which I do not have, and do not propose, an answer, but I certainly do not think there needs to be a single physiological source which determines a person's "real" gender.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:28 on 2010-06-13

But most trans people (to the best of my knowledge) spend their whole lives feeling like they are in the wrong body. It's something that's there with them from a very, very early age so I feel like there has to be a biological reason for it. But I, like everyone else, am no expert on the subject.

From my (very limited) understanding this is another thing that Varies Really Quite A Lot so I suspect that the best that we can do is to put our hands up and say "This Is Extremely Complicated And It Is Important Not To Make Generalizations".

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 23:31 on 2010-06-13

Melissa

,

Apologies for opening that topic up again, but I felt like it was important...

No need to apologize: I didn't mean to seem like I was trying to close down the discussion, just to flag up that maybe it couldn't get much further than it had done without referring to actual trans experiences (which is what you've relayed here) and / or scientific evidence.

I'm extremely uncertain about the whole question. My highly non-expert understanding is that it's generally agreed among the relevant experts that a lot of extremely important stuff happens in very early childhood, to the point where it's quite risky to assume that a given characteristic is innate solely on the basis that the person concerned has had it ever since she or he can remember. On the other hand I know of no evidence that transgender isn't at least partly physiological, and it's clearly obnoxious to do the thing Viorica complains of, namely challenging a transgendered person's interpretation of his or her own experience not on the basis of evidence but simply to defend an absolutist position on the construction of gender. On the other hand again (what is this, the third hand? - sorry), surely one could in principle hold that absolutist view while also saying, 'Even if the transgender experience of being born in the wrong body is somehow scientifically false, it's still clearly something that they haven't consciously chosen and that means their bodies are preventing them living the lives they want, and therefore it's extremely important that they be able to make whatever changes to their lives and their bodies will make them feel more truly themselves, and that they not be stigmatized for it.' But perhaps that misses the point, I don't know. I confess on trans issues I'm at such an early stage of learning that I wouldn't even call myself a beginner as I'm now prepared to do on the more 'traditional' feminist issues. Hence I shall clam up again now! :)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 23:37 on 2010-06-13Good grief, I've just re-read the hypothetical position in my comment above that starts 'Even if the transgender experience...' and seen that it's very othering and rather awful. Not that I was saying it was my position, but still, gah. I really shall shut up now before I do that again (especially since Dan has done a better job while I was writing).

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 04:39 on 2010-06-14

I suspect that the best that we can do is to put our hands up and say "This Is Extremely Complicated And It Is Important Not To Make Generalizations".

Oh, I most certainly agree. I imagine it's a complicated mix of nurture and nature (like most things) that no one can really pin down and make work for every single experience. Which is probably why I find psychology so fascinating. :-)

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 04:44 on 2010-06-14

No need to apologize: I didn't mean to seem like I was trying to close down the discussion, just to flag up that maybe it couldn't get much further than it had done without referring to actual trans experiences (which is what you've relayed here) and / or scientific evidence.

Thanks! I was just making sure. Because it's all very well and good for me to be like "Well, my trans friends says..." but I still can't speak to the topic with much authority past what I've been told by the one person I know who's trans.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 05:10 on 2010-06-14

I wonder, in fact, whether there isn't a cultural thing at work here with the "ally" thing.

I was thinking this too when I saw the tweeter from Jamie's link was from Australia, but then continued down the short bio to learn that she went to Princeton and lives in NYC which makes me think she would be familiar with the use of 'ally'. So, yeah, I don't know.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:03 on 2010-06-14

On the other hand again (what is this, the third hand? - sorry), surely one could in principle hold that absolutist view while also saying, 'Even if the transgender experience of being born in the wrong body is somehow scientifically false, it's still clearly something that they haven't consciously chosen and that means their bodies are preventing them living the lives they want, and therefore it's extremely important that they be able to make whatever changes to their lives and their bodies will make them feel more truly themselves, and that they not be stigmatized for it.'

Replying to this point because as somebody who *does* hold the "absolutist" view (insofar as I consider it extremely probable that there is no such thing as a "male" or "female" brain and don't see much room for maneuver on that) I thought it might be worth clarifying a couple of things - if only because otherwise I'm tacitly admitting to being a trans-hating bigot.

The first thing is that, as I understand it, there's a difference between being *transsexual* (feeling that you were born in the "wrong body") and being *transgender* (possessing a gender identity which does not match the identity assigned to you at birth, or by society). Obviously the two often go together but it is possible to be transgender without being transsexual. There are quite a lot of people who self-identify as a member of the "opposite" sex but feel no particular discomfort with their bodies. There are, in fact, men who are perfectly happy with their vaginas.

This again is part of what makes me so uncomfortable about the "girl brain/boy brain" idea. If you assume that trans-identity has to stem from a "dissonance" between the brain and the body, then you exclude all those who feel no such dissonance. There are people who self-define as trans but feel no need to have surgery - something which under the "male and female brains" model should be impossible. I'm also not certain how it accounts for people who identify as genderqueer, or for people who are intersex.

Ultimately some people *do* feel like they were born in the "wrong body" and it's obviously important to recognize the validity of that but at the same time it's important to recognize that when it comes to a person's body "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. If somebody feels that they're supposed to have breasts, then they're supposed to have breasts - this has nothing to do with gender essentialism and everything to do with people's rights (within the limits of technology and some really horribly complicated areas of medical ethics) to have control over their bodies.

I think it's quite important to recognize that a person's right to define both their gender identity and what happens to their body (which may or may not correlate) does not need to be validated by reference to biology. Indeed most attempts to define gender in biological terms have major problems - some men have ovaries, some women have testes, and if you believe in that sort of thing, some men have female brains. It feels a little like this thread has tacitly accepted Viorica's original dichotomy (embrace gender essentialism or invalidate trans identity) and I think it's quite important to realize that this isn't necessary.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 15:21 on 2010-06-16I just noticed that there is an interesting series called 'A trangender journey' on the Guardian at the moment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/transgender-journey

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 20:13 on 2010-07-26I wanted to say something about this article when I first read it, but could never quite work out what to say. So, just two things, then:

(1) Men can absolutely be feminists, and in my opinion "feminist" is exactly what they ought to call themselves. "Feminism" is still treated as something of a dirty word by some people, so I think that anyone who holds genuinely pro-equality opinions should proudly claim the label and not be put off by wondering whether they deserve it. Make people think twice about what feminism and being "a feminist" actually means.

(2) That song is awesome, and I think the last verse is as necessary as any of the rest. Primarily because, even as a feminist who was a tomboy growing up, I still thought "wait, what?" about the man asserting "when I was a girl". Because it's somehow more acceptable for a girl to behave like a boy than the reverse - apparently, even in my head. <cone>

@Jamie specifically: Since you've read some of Fugitivus' blog, I wondered if you'd ever come across

this article

, which I found via a link in one of her posts. It reminded me of what Alex said in this thread about how he believes that abolition of sexism would benefit him as a man, which is something I believe to be true also. (Even though I'm a woman, heh.)

I wish I could write something as coherent as this about why I became a feminist, but every time I try it just fails to come out right. :(

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 13:27 on 2010-08-01Hi Furare, sorry not to have responded earlier - I've been moving house and things have been a bit wouaeugh.

Yes, I do remember reading that, quite possibly linked from Fugitivus, but I'd forgotten it so it was good to be reminded, thanks. It produces in me a somewhat similar reaction to the line 'I have lost and you have won' in the song, namely a blend of sadness, shame (by proxy, by association, and directly), resolve, and fear at the scale of the task. A this-is-the-price-of-your-privilege smoothie, if you like. Just the thing to drink in the morning before a day of trying not to be a cad. :)

And yeah, I agree that abolishing sexism would benefit men. (Unless of course it turned out that abolishing sexism involved, as some suggest, abolishing 'men' and 'women' as separate categories, in which case it would benefit the people formerly classified as men.) Hypothetical men in the future, definitely. But it's a bit strange to think about whether it would benefit me because it's very difficult to imagine. I mean difficult not just in the sense that it's difficult to imagine a world without sexism but that it's difficult to imagine that happening within my lifetime so that I would be able to benefit from it. I can imagine waking up tomorrow and finding that cars had been abolished, or war, or higher education, because those are external things that could, in theory, just simply stop in an instant and never be seen again, and we'd all be the same people we were the day before except we wouldn't be able to travel / get killed / learn stuff in quite the same way. Whereas sexism is in all our heads and we wouldn't be the same people without it. It's in my head and I don't know what it would feel like for it not to be there and how much I'd feel like me. So trying to imagine a world without sexism involves either imagining a world without me in it, in which case I obviously wouldn't be getting any personal benefit, or imagining a world in which I were a different person, possibly a radically different one, in which case it's hard to identify the 'me' who would be getting the benefit.

You might reasonably accuse me of thinking too literally about a hypothetical situation that's really just a turn of phrase, but that is pretty much my reaction, even without the alternate-world theorizing. I can't imagine getting any serious personal benefit out of not being a sexist or out of other people not being sexist (apart from the 'I feel better about myself' benefit that's always used to 'disprove' altruism). When I think about making myself and others less sexist - when I conceive that task and feel my reaction to it - it feels like a hard and unending slog with little promise of personal reward. I feel like I would be more content and more self-confident and probably even a more interesting and fun person if I made myself not care. I might even, on balance, bring more pleasure and excitement to other people's lives that way, but it would be at the price of doing some harm and supporting harmful behaviour in others.

Which isn't to say that feminism never makes life more pleasant or fun for men who engage in it: I'm sure some, maybe most, find that it makes them more outgoing, or more at peace with themselves, or more exciting, or more relaxed, or whatever. I guess it depends on the mental techniques you use to change yourself. My experience of self-improvement mostly involves self-censorship, self-criticism, and working to neutralize bits of myself, which over all tends to make me less talkative*, less confident, less spontaneous, less relaxed, and generally less interesting. Which isn't a benefit. Of course if sexism were suddenly magically removed from all our minds while we slept I wouldn't have to do so much of that, which I guess would be a benefit, but also I'd be someone different (and so would you and everyone else), so it would be a benefit to someone else. If you see what I mean.

* (Some may be surprised by the suggestion that I'm becoming less talkative. I'd clarify that if this comment weren't already far too long and far too much about me. But it is, so.)

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 15:54 on 2010-08-01Ha! I'm afraid that feminism is making me *more* talkative, while at the same time, a bit of a killjoy. Sometimes I'm afraid that I am the world's most boring person for caring about any of this. But - I don't know if you've found this or not - I can't stop caring about it. Once you realise how fucked up everything is, it's really difficult to stop realising. It's everywhere, and once you've started noticing it, you keep noticing. You - or at least I - just can't help it anymore.

You're right that sexism is kind of embedded in our culture and it's difficult to imagine what things would be like without it. But - and I may well be telling you something you already know here - being anti-sexism doesn't actually benefit an individual woman any more than you feel it benefits you. Life is actually a lot easier if you shut up, smile and don't think too hard. Being a feminist has made me paranoid that I sound "too angry" (self-critical, and also a sign of internalised sexism), careful about not making "reverse sexist" comments about men in case someone decides I'm a hypocrite (self-censorship), and as I've already said, I'm afraid it makes me less interesting.

But then I guess, like all activism, the end result is the reason we do it, not because it will benefit us. Not that I particularly mind the idea of being someone different, mostly because that person would probably be less neurotic.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 18:30 on 2010-08-02Sorry, may comment more when I've gotten around to reading the article proper. For now I just want to pop in and address this:

Furare: Once you realise how fucked up everything is, it's really difficult to stop realising. It's everywhere, and once you've started noticing it, you keep noticing. You - or at least I - just can't help it anymore.

Seriously, are you reading my mind or something?

Being a feminist has made me paranoid that I sound "too angry"

Yeah, I'd noticed you apologizing for

your mini-rant

on the

gender-segregated exams

a couple months ago. I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant. Personally, I wince at every apology, because I strongly believe it's something you shouldn't be apologizing for, and I hope this site at least is a safe space for people to air those types of feelings.

I'm afraid it makes me less interesting.

Exactly the opposite, to my mind.

But then I guess, like all activism, the end result is the reason we do it, not because it will benefit us.

Agreed, but for myself, I find solution-based activism incredibly fulfilling and satisfying. (Ranting about the problem can be fun too, and a good way to blow off steam, but I don't get the same sense of accomplishment as when I'm participating in a project which I think will - even in just a small way - make the world/some section thereof a better and more equal place. Yay, run-on sentences!)

It sounds like your experience is rather different, and I'm sorry to hear it.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:02 on 2010-08-03

Men can absolutely be feminists, and in my opinion "feminist" is exactly what they ought to call themselves. "Feminism" is still treated as something of a dirty word by some people, so I think that anyone who holds genuinely pro-equality opinions should proudly claim the label and not be put off by wondering whether they deserve it. Make people think twice about what feminism and being "a feminist" actually means.

Just thought I'd chime in on this one.

I think the problem with being a feminist-identified-man is that while "Feminism" is treated as a dirty word by some people, it's treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card by others. c.f. "Joss Whedon Is A Feminist Therefore His Portrayal of Gender Can Never Be Problematic" arguments passim ad nauseam.

A depressing number of feminist-identified-men treat feminism as this abstract principle which in no way requires them to modify their behaviour. I suspect, for example, that the vast majority of Nice Guys also consider themselves feminists (because after all, being a Nice Guy is all about having *respect* for women and that's what feminism *is*, right?).

As a result I (ironically) tend to only self-define as a feminist to anti-feminists, and otherwise just settle for "trying not to be too much of a dickbag".

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:22 on 2010-08-03

Yeah, I'd noticed you apologizing for your mini-rant on the gender-segregated exams a couple months ago. I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant. Personally, I wince at every apology, because I strongly believe it's something you shouldn't be apologizing for, and I hope this site at least is a safe space for people to air those types of feelings.

So ... B must try harder?

Sorry if this sounds oversensitive but it just strikes me that Furare's initial comment stands perfectly well on its own as a description of her experiences and doesn't need you to elaborate on it.

Sorry if this sounds overly hostile, but this is kind of the behaviour I was talking about in my previous comment. Your response here is actually a little bit patronising - Furare is an intelligent adult woman who is capable of articulating and understanding her own experiences, she doesn't *need* you to spell it out for her. She certainly doesn't need your permission or your encouragement to express herself.

I'm sure it's not your intent, but your entire comment reads like your primary concern is pointing out to us what a Big Damned Feminist you are rather than actually engaging with anything anybody has said. I mean basically your whole post boils down to "I feel the same way you do, except more strongly, and I'm more comfortable about it, and I do more."

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 11:44 on 2010-08-03

As a result I (ironically) tend to only self-define as a feminist to anti-feminists, and otherwise just settle for "trying not to be too much of a dickbag".

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by claiming the title anyway. It's not like I go up to people and say "Hi, I'm Furare, and I'm a feminist" a la Daffyd from Little Britain. And you're right that there are feminist men who use feminism as a shield rather than engaging with it as an ideology. My original comment did say "anyone who holds genuinely pro-equality opinions", which to my mind involves the behaviour modification that some allegedly feminist men never try to do.

I guess the thing is that, like one of the posters above, I don't like people telling me they're my ally. Call yourself a feminist and I can say "Well, okay then, but if you're a feminist why do you still do X/laugh at Y?" Call yourself an "ally", and maybe it's just me, but I would feel like I can't nitpick as much because "you're not really my ally" sounds more personal than "you're not really a feminist".

I do agree with something you said once, Dan, which was (I think): "Men who identify as feminists should take a good look at themselves because, guys, there is a non-zero chance that you are a creepy asshole". Being male and a feminist involves more self-scrutiny and self-censorship than being female and a feminist. But it's possible as long as you ("you" being the hypothetical feminist man) keep an eye on yourself and make sure your actions match your words.

I stand by the comment that men can be feminists. I don't think that every man who claims to be a feminist is one, which is why men who *really are* feminists should claim the label. And maybe challenge the Nice Guy jackasses who are using feminism as a means to cover their collective asses. I do think there's a negative correlation between how feminist a man actually is, and how willing he is to call himself a feminist.

It sounds like your experience is rather different, and I'm sorry to hear it.

Well, my immediate experience is being told to lighten up and not take everything so seriously by my mother, having my sister tell me that I'm RUINING THE JOKE when I point out that something is problematic, being told every now and again that I'm "one of the boys" by someone who means it as a compliment...

And apparently I'm "too rigid" if I insist on always paying for my own dinner. Even though the reason I want to do it is because there is no good reason for me to let a man buy me dinner, short of me buying him dinner in return at a later date. Or if it's my birthday. Which is, like, once a year.

RE: Apologising - I apologised for the mini-rant because it was technically a massive derail. I do have a tendency to apologise when I don't need to in real life, but I always thought this was just because I'm British.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 13:31 on 2010-08-03

But - I don't know if you've found this or not - I can't stop caring about it.

Yes, I know what you mean. In principle I think I have to believe that one could somehow switch it off again, because it feels like as a necessary corollary to my belief that people can make themselves better I have to also believe that people can make themselves worse. But it's quite hard to imagine how that would actually work.

I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant.

Well, yeeees, but also I remember Arthur apologizing for his '

Angels & demons

is evil' speech, so although there is undoubtedly an internalized sexism thing that often makes women feel the need to excuse themselves after expressing strong opinions, we shouldn't necessarily assume that that's what's happening every time. I'd say in the podcast setting there was another factor operating, especially in the early episodes when we weren't used to the dynamics of that particular group yet (and I can only speak for myself, but I suspect the others had variations on this): not wanting to take up more than one's fair share of air-time, and also not wanting to make the tone too heavy for what was essentially a fun and slightly flippant exercise. And when you have a long rant you feels like you've sort of broken both those 'rules', especially if you get to the end and you don't find everyone saying, 'Yeah, totally, that's exactly what I thought'. I think in the later episodes there was less of that because we developed an alternative habit: rather than X rants and then X apologizes, it tended to be X rants and everyone else mocks X a bit for ranting, which is more entertaining for all involved. (E.g. Arthur on 'Everyone has been hypnotized by everyone else' and me on the housekeeper and various people on 'No seriously I think something is going to happen in the next chapter of

The god of small things

'.) My attempt to dive into the depths of The Nature Of Plot came somewhere in between, so although I didn't actually apologize for it I did try to minimize it a bit, and the others didn't exactly mock me but did say 'Oh not this again' next time the subject loomed. So, er, I can't quite remember what point I was trying to make, but anyway there we are.

... short of me buying him dinner in return at a later date.

I'm a big fan of one person paying for both and the other doing the same the next time and so on, and I do it equally with friends of all kinds. It sets up a spirit of mutually dependent reciprocity rather than independent separateness, and it also has that feature you get in gift-exchange cultures where the exchange of gifts never comes to an obvious point of equilibrium where the parties can say 'Okay, we're all square now, we can walk away' and therefore the constant imbalance encourages the relationship to continue, because there always has to be a 'next time' so that the person who didn't pay this time doesn't end up in profit permanently. And eventually it gets to the point where no one can keep track of it any more and it's just become a relationship where sometimes we buy each other stuff and we really don't worry about it, which is nice. But the most important and massive advantage for me is that it means I don't have to do mental arithmetic.

Having said that, I guess it wouldn't necessarily be great for early dates when one might want to keep an element of 'We can get out of this at any time because we're all square at any given moment'.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 13:55 on 2010-08-03

I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant.

Yes, not to keep flogging this dead horse but I think I was apologising for being anti-social rather than being feminist.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 21:15 on 2010-08-03*Looks at last paragraph of previous post, beats head repeatedly against wall*

Thank you for drawing this to my attention, Dan. Ye gods, but that was massively patronizing. I apologize to Furare and everyone else on this thread.

As for the rest, I meant to say, essentially “please, don't apologize.” Thank you, Furare, Jamie and Kyra for addressing that.

Er, so, apologies again for the epic fail.

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 21:26 on 2010-08-29I always meant to get around to replying to this.

RE: Paying for dinner - I find it really difficult to relax and enjoy dinner if someone else is paying for it. Even when it's one of my parents. It makes me uncomfortable, and also renders me anxious about what my food choice - with particular reference to how much the meal costs - says about me. Like, if I have the steak, that's expensive, so will they think I'm selfish and greedy? If I really want a cheap dish, though, will they think I'm calling them stingy?

This might not be a concern for a lot of people, but I have social anxieties, and paying for my own dinner cuts out a lot of what makes me feel uncomfortable in that particular social situation. I'm explaining it here for the sake of context, but I should not have to say this to some guy I don't know very well. I probably wouldn't explain it, because anyone who chooses to "insist" on paying after I've already said no is not someone with whom I'm particularly interested in becoming further acquainted. (Oh, you "insist" on pushing my boundaries in the name of tradition? How sweet. Bleh.)

I don't really care what arrangements other people have with their friends or SOs or whoever - what I do care about is that the man paying for the woman's dinner is still seen as the default. I'm not trying to say that Jamie's favoured setup is wrong, and in fact alternating is a very egalitarian way of dealing with these things (and probably more convenient when it comes to paying by card in restaurants). It wouldn't work for me, but that's not the be all and end all of whether or not something's right. Heh.

I only mentioned the paying for dinner thing in the first place because I'd read an article written (for men, by a woman) on How To Guarantee a Second Date. And one of the tips was basically "you should pay. We lied. We don't want to pay half." To which my incredulous response was - Speak for yourself. Because you sure as hell aren't speaking for me. Jeez, way to encourage men not to believe a word that comes out of a woman's mouth. I'm not pretending to be independent and feminist to look "cute".

Bah, now I've gone and made myself angry again.

RE: Robinson's comment - I didn't find it offensive, to be honest. Maybe there's something problematic about him saying I don't need to apologise, or that activism can be fun, but I didn't read it that way. People are always telling me not to apologise for things because I really don't need to, so that's how I originally read what Robinson was saying even before he clarified it.

Though this discussion kind of reminds me of a far more obnoxious argument I once had about feminism on a gaming forum. I actually got people DISAGREEING WITH ME when I said "as men, you do NOT get to decide that women aren't subject to sexist discrimination any more." Christ, what a train wreck that was.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 18:06 on 2011-01-19Okay, having now read this perfectly lovely article and perfectly lovely discussion with perfectly lovely links all around I'm sorry all over again for shooting off my mouth and bringing the quality down. So let's try again and see if this time I can avoid losing my foot down my own throat.

I don't have much of an ear for music, and I guess I feel the same about this song as I do about most others: it's okay. The discourse is very good, and as a male, I did feel a resonance when the man in the song says “I rarely cry anymore.” That's also a great analysis of the song's construction, Jamie.

Re: Men as feminists

I was at a workshop over the summer run by a white guy talking about feminism and a bunch of other progressive ideologies/movements.

When we came to discussing the distinction between “feminism” and “pro-feminism,” he shared a story of taking part in a feminist group in which he was the only man, and after a while one of the women in the group pulled him aside and said gently, “Would you call yourself a black liberationist?” And that seems to have made a significant impression on his thinking when it comes to the “feminist” label.

Philosophically, I'm of the school which says that men absolutely can and should be feminists. Feminism to me means replacing patriarchy and sexism with gender egalitarianism, which is a project equally for women and for men.

I generally use the term “ally” to refer to issues within feminism or anti-racism or whatever that do not affect me personally. I can be an ally on an issue without calling myself personally an ally to every person affected by that issue. For what it's worth, I also think it's reasonable to say “you call yourself an anti-domestic abuse ally, but look how you push around your girlfriend all the time” (sorry, there're probably better examples out there, I'm just blanking on them at the moment).

Perhaps,

as Arthur suggests

, all that “ally” stuff from the previous paragraph is more US-based (though I don't recall ever having heard it articulated like this before); but by no means is there an agreement in US feminist circles that men cannot be feminists. All of the feminists I know—American and European—are quite clear that men can and should be feminists.

Of course it's a problem when men (and women, for that matter) who clearly aren't feminists claim that label—but I think cooptation is a problem for social movements pretty universally. People who genuinely care about the issues do need to resist when skeevy people in power (whether macro or micro) adopt the rhetoric of those movements to advance truly destructive agendas. None of this,

by itself

makes for me a compelling argument that men cannot be feminists.

I can't imagine getting any serious personal benefit out of not being a sexist or out of other people not being sexist (apart from the 'I feel better about myself' benefit that's always used to 'disprove' altruism). When I think about making myself and others less sexist - when I conceive that task and feel my reaction to it - it feels like a hard and unending slog with little promise of personal reward.

Agreed on the unending slog, but I wonder about the lack of serious personal benefits. Here are some of the thoughts which occur to me:

It is my belief that a sexist outlook and attitude creates an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance; psychic damage. Achieving a completely non-sexist mindset is impossible in a patriarchal society, but the less sexism in one's outlook, the less cognitive dissonance and the less damage to one's psyche. Similarly for racism, militarism, classism, heterosexism, etc.

Also, as a man, I see sexism as working (somewhat successfully) to cripple my emotional/relational maturity and my ability to make meaningful connections with other people. Terrence Real—one of my touchstones for a feminist masculinity—has written a book exposing how the violent, unemotional, never-lose patriarchal view of masculinity results in internal as well as external damage. (i.e. it hurts the men living it out, even as they in turn hurt other people.)

I couldn't count the times I've caught myself rejecting assistance with something-or-other because, as a man, I'm not supposed to need help from other people—I'm supposed to suck it up and tough it out. I'm generally pretty good at doing favors for others without reward, but I'm bad at accepting favors from others, and worse at asking for them.

I've also noticed numerous little behaviors which I've censored, because they'd mark me out as too “girly,” or gay, or both. You should see the way I agonize over little things like telling my friends how much I love them.

It seems to me that eliminating these manifestations of sexism (and homophobia) in myself will make me a happier and healthier human being, as well as a less prickish one.

permalink

-

go to top

http://lokifan.livejournal.com/

at 21:14 on 2011-05-05Thanks for introducing me to Dar Williams! Wonderful article. The song made me cry too.

this is the line I always choke on: 'And so I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived, and I say, "Now you're top gun: I have lost and you have won."' Can there be anything more heartbreaking to a man with any heart at all than the thought that your female friends and relatives might, even only in brief moments, feel like your defeated opponents?

That line makes me emotional too -

you were just like me/I was just like you

made me cry. It's not one of the Big Serious Things that happens because of sexism, or even one of the insidiuous unavoidable things, but I do believe patriarchy makes it harder for men and women to reach each other and connect, between the messages telling us we're so inherently different, and the differences in how we experience the world. Which is just unbearably sad.

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/sundance-day-8-wounds-queer-perspective-plus-throughbred-sidney-hall/

Sundance Day 8 'Wound's' queer perspective plus 'Throughbred,' 'Sidney Hall'

The 2017 Sundance Film Festival is nearly over, and as we’re basking in the glow of fresh air and theater lighting, it’s exciting knowing that some amazing treasures found here will be resonating with today’s world. Some of our favorites picks of today are John Trengrove’s fascinating The Wound which really gives an eye-opening look at a South African secretive rite of passage for boys entering into manhood.

Thoroughbred is another very interesting one that many people can relate to about two friends trying to rekindle their connection. It reminded me of when you home five years or more after high school and run into some of those same people who never left your town. You realize how much you’ve changed in that time and trying to connect again is nearly impossible, especially for those that haven’t changed at all in that same timeframe.

‘THE WOUND’ PRESENTS A QUEER PERSPECTIVE ON A SOUTH AFRICAN RITUAL OF MANHOOD

For his enthralling debut feature, South African filmmaker John Trengove lifts the veil on the secretive rite of passage from boyhood to manhood in a remote area of South Africa. The Wound follows Xolani (Nakhane Touré), a forlorn factory worker, as he travels to an obscure mountain camp where teen boys go through the traditional Xhola initiation. Xolani has been assigned to mentor a friend’s son, Kwanda (Niza Jay Ncoyini), who notices the attraction between Xolani and another caregiver, Vija (Bongile Mantsai), who is not only secretive about his sexuality but also prone to bursts of explosive behavior.

Following the screening, Trengove, who is white and self-identifies as queer, said he made the movie because there’s a complete lack of queer imagery in the African film canon. “It came out of a sense of urgency,” he told the audience. “For myself as an outsider, it’s something I could speak about more freely than someone who is inside the culture. I’m speaking about same-sex desire. As a queer filmmaker I was able to introduce the subject into this very intricate world and practice.”

Describing the project as the result of profound collaborations, Trengove revealed that to achieve authenticity he spoke with a South African novelist who had been through the initiation himself, and the two men began to create the story together. The three principal actors in the film each in his own way made a formidable contribution to the film, not just in terms of what an actor does but in making the characters their own and contributing something quintessential and unique to their own experiences.

Trengove noted that the film’s subject matter is very controversial in South Africa, despite being the subject of various documentaries and news articles and even being mentioned by Nelson Mandela in his autobiography. “I think our film comes at a moment when there’s a growing conversation about a sensitive subject,” he stated. “The ritual has come under fire for reasons of relevance and safety. I think equally it’s still regarded as a meaningful process that boys go through that shows them their place in the world of men.”

The director praised the courage of his three lead actors for taking on the roles. “I was very fortunate to have the bravery of these three actors to collaborate on what you saw tonight,” he said. “They did it for their own very personal reasons, primarily out of a conviction that these are stories we need to begin to speak out.”

THOROUGHBRED: OLIVIA COOKE AND ANYA TAYLOR-JOY CONSPIRE TO MURDER

With his debut film, Thoroughbred, Cory Finley finessed his way through two major challenges that could confound another first-time filmmaker. The first, as he told the audience during a post-screening discussion on Thursday at the Yarrow Theatre, was a transition from theater to moviemaking. And the second was pulling off a nuanced tone that at once straddles comedy, drama, and thriller.

The film stars Sundance Film Festival veterans Olivia Cooke (Me and Earl and the Dying Girl) and Anya Taylor-Joy (The Witch) as Amanda and Lily, two old school friends who uneasily try to rekindle some kind of connection. Though Amanda is emotionally blocked, incapable of showing or perhaps even having feelings, chilly Lily slowly reveals herself to be in greater crisis, as she bristles against a stepfather whose strictness is driving her to entertain wicked thoughts.

Finley talked about how Thoroughbred started out as a play but became a film. “When it was a play it really was a kind of philosophical, moral discussion between these two characters on one couch. It started with asking questions about myself, and attacking some of my own fears and anxieties about my own mind and moral compass, through writing,” he said. “As I started getting towards the later drafts of the play, I realized that there was something about it that was very film noir. And even though it was contained in one household, I started becoming aware of all the things I could do cinematically.”

Producer Alex Saks talked about her first conversation with Finley, after coming across what was still a play. “Within five minutes I knew that even if he didn’t know it yet, he was going to direct the movie — and that he was a filmmaker,” she said. Finley described trying to make up for his inexperience by reading books, watching movies, and visiting film sets in the months before his first shoot. “I tried to cram in as much preparation as possible so that I could communicate effectively with the whole crew,” he said. “But I was certainly learning a lot on the job.”

And as for that fine-tuned tone, Finley said it was something they consciously refined from rehearsals through the shoot and then in editing. “We talked about [the tone] as being a narrow tightrope,” he said. “I was lucky to get a couple of days of rehearsal before we started, with the two leads, and we came to a clear understanding of the tone that we were all aiming for. And then in the editing process we had another chance to really look carefully at these scenes and play very specifically with timing and pauses and different takes. There’s a fun balance to be had in trying to provoke an audience to laugh and also to be slightly afraid. The two emotions, if you can balance them, go well together.”

Though he said he still plans on producing more theater, Finley’s first foray into filmmaking has him hooked. “I’ve fallen in love with the tools to which a director has access,” he said. “So I’m definitely looking forward to playing around in this world more.”

WINNIE: A DOC ABOUT WOMEN, POLITICS, AND MISOGYNY

With WINNIE, the new documentary about Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Pascale Lamche offers an illuminating portrait of the complex story of the woman, who is often cast in the shadow of legendary human rights activist Nelson Mandela, her husband of 38 years, even though she fought on the frontlines to end apartheid during the 27 years he was imprisoned.

While Winnie’s story has been capably told by other filmmakers and documentarians and through countless books and articles, Lamche manages to create a fresh, thorough, and likely definitive study by using revealing new interviews, as well as a veritable treasure trove of newly uncovered archival materials.

“I interviewed Nelson twice for previous films, and each time it was a great honor to meet him and speak to him and spend time with him, but I was always very intrigued by Winnie,” Lamche told the audience at the post-screening Q&A. The director noted that, while Winnie is mostly venerated in her home of Soweto, South Africa, Lamche learned that her subject was also widely demonized in many European capitals for her crusade against racism, and a smear campaign was launched against her. “That seemed like a space to explore,” the director offered.

Through a meeting and conversation with Mandela’s daughter Zindzi, who also speaks on camera in the doc, Lamche was eventually introduced to Winnie. She ended up interviewing her subject four times over a period of two years, including once just after the death of her former husband, when she was still dressed in her black mourning clothes.

“On each occasion, I tried to pull back another layer of the story,” Lamche shared. “Each time I met her I uncovered more in the story because I’d been digging away and making progress with the people who’d been her enemies. I never went to her with specifics and said I interviewed this guy who waged this warfare campaign against you. As our relationship progressed over time, it deepened. I hope that’s apparent in the film.” As her film skillfully explores the intersection of women, politics, and misogyny, it’s not a challenge for audiences to draw a strong parallel between Mandela’s story and the current political climate in the U.S.

PERSON TO PERSON: A SUBTLE, OPTIMISTIC COLLAGE OF EVERYDAY NEW YORKERS

“I made [this movie] with a lot of friends. And it’s about tenderness, it’s about friendship, it’s about wanting to have a friend, and what it’s like to be a friend, and what it’s like to lose a friend,” explained director Dustin Guy Defa as he introduced his latest project, Person to Person. Defa makes his return to the Festival after his 2014 short film of the same name.

The feature, shot in retro 16mm, follows various characters throughout one day in New York City, including a moody teenager putting up with her best friend’s antics, an endearingly simple man trying to buy a rare vinyl record (Bene Coopersmith, who also starred in the short film version of the story), a depressed guy attempting to reconcile with his girlfriend after hurting her, and an anxiety-ridden rookie reporter who feels completely out of place her first day on the job. But unlike other films that depict a large ensemble of characters with different story lines, this one doesn’t aim to connect them in any obvious way other than the fact that they’re in the same city.

Defa said that when he first thought of the idea for this project, “I got very excited … to make such a variety of people and to not necessarily connect them. So I got very excited [about how to] pull it off. I developed all the characters separately. … But once I started actually working on the outline and the writing, I was interconnecting it in other ways that aren’t visible. … Even though they all had such different things and different tones and things like that, I was still connecting them thematically in many ways. And so I needed the flow to really work even though all these people had such different things going on.”

When asked which characters he relates to the most, Defa revealed, “They’re all me in many ways. I’ve done stupid things in my life, I’ve treated people weirdly, and then friendship is very important to me [like it is with Bene]. And Wendy the teenager is definitely me as a teenager in many ways. … But I don’t have a favorite.”

The characters don’t necessarily go through anything captivatingly dramatic, but Defa’s purpose wasn’t to have audiences on the edge of their seats. He explained that, amid many abrasive, visceral depictions that often appear on the screen, he simply wanted to create “a nice place to go for an hour and a half” — to which the audience applauded in agreement.

  SIDNEY HALL: A PRECOCIOUS WRITING TALENT DRIFTS INTO OBSCURITY

Sidney Hall, which premiered on Wednesday night at the Eccles Theatre, spans 12 years in the life of the eponymous character, from the moment that the precocious high school kid becomes a celebrated author to his apex of fame and emotional nadir, and to his time disowning all that he’d become and drifting into obscurity. Remarkably, those 12 years mirror the 12 years it took writer-director Shawn Christensen and writer Jason Dolan to see the project to completion.

“Shawn was in a great band called stellastarr*, and when he was on tour I sent him the first couple of pages of the script, and we went from there. It was the summer of 2004,” Dolan said during the post-screening Q&A. “We wanted to tell a story about perspective — what it’s like to think about how you were at 18, 24, and 30. We chose those ages because those were the ages we were at when we were writing the script.”

The breadth of time covered presented challenges for both the crew and the performers, including Logan Lerman as Sidney and Elle Fanning as his neighbor and later wife, Melody. “The transitions between ages — sometimes we had only hours in which to do it,” Lerman recalled.

“We shot 10 days of [age] 18 first, then we shot the [age] 24 segment, and then we shot the 30, with the intention of having a weekend in between each era,” Christensen said. “But actually for Elle and for Logan I had to break the news to them that we were going to have to switch from 18 to 24 over the lunch break.”

Though it seems like such a quick shift in age would be challenging, Fanning explained, “You can’t really think about playing older or playing a certain age, because what does that really mean?” She continued, “I was more interested in where Melody was in her life.”

The script doesn’t take a straightforward chronological approach to those eras, and instead interweaves them throughout, such that it’s only at the end that you know how the characters resolved each of those dramatic moments. Dolan explained that he hoped audiences would connect to that structure because “your life is sometimes a mess in your own mind.” He said, “What we wanted was to give people a puzzle to put together, to reflect on this character and also themselves.”

Movie TV Tech Geeks News