#about activism and violent protests than any metaphorical discussion

[npdclaraoswald]

I've decided to be okay with movie!Hobie being British if and only if they establish that he killed the queen

[samwisethewitch]

Pagan Paths: Reclaiming

Many pagans and witches are also political activists. Pagan values — such as respect for the planet and for non-human forms of life, belief in equality regardless of race or gender, and personal autonomy — often lead people to social or political action. However, as far as I know, there is only one pagan religion that has actually made this social activism one of its core tenets: Reclaiming. Reclaiming combines neopaganism with anarchist principles and social activism.

This post is not meant to be a complete introduction to Reclaiming. Instead, my goal here is to give you a taste of what Reclaiming practitioners believe and do, so you can decide for yourself if further research would be worth your time. In that spirit, I provide book recommendations at the end of this post.

History and Background

Given Reclaiming’s reputation as a social justice-oriented faith, it’s not surprising that it grew out of activist efforts. Reclaiming began with well-known pagan authors Starhawk and Diane Baker, who began teaching classes on modern witchcraft in California in the 1980s. Members of these classes began protesting and doing other activist work together, and this pagan activist group eventually grew into the Reclaiming Collective.

Out of the founders of Reclaiming, Starhawk has probably had the biggest influence on the tradition. Starhawk was initiated into the Feri tradition by its founder Victor Anderson, but had also been trained in Wicca and worked with figures such as Zsuzsanna Budapest (founder of Dianic Wicca). These Feri and Wiccan influences are clear in Starhawk’s books, such as The Spiral Dance, and have also helped shape the Reclaiming tradition.

Like Feri, Reclaiming is an ecstatic tradition that emphasizes the interconnected divinity of all things. Like Eclectic Wicca, Reclaiming is a non-initiatory religion (meaning anyone can join, regardless of training or experience level) with lots of room to customize and personalize your individual practice.

However, to say that Starhawk is the head of the Reclaiming tradition, or even to credit her as its sole founder, would be incorrect. As Reclaiming has grown and spread, it has become increasingly decentralized. Decisions are made by consensus (meaning the group must reach a unanimous decision) in small, individual communities, which author Irisanya Moon calls “cells.” Each cell has its own unique beliefs, practices, and requirements for members, stemming from Reclaiming’s core values (see below). Some of these cells may stick very closely to the kind of paganism Starhawk describes in her books, while others may look very, very different.

As with any other religion, there are times where a governing body is needed to make widespread changes to the system, such as changing core doctrine. When these situations do arise, each individual cell chooses a representative, who in turn serves as a voice for that cell in a gathering with other representatives from other cells. BIRCH (the Broad Intra-Reclaiming Council of Hubs) is an example of this.

At BIRCH meetings, representatives make decisions via consensus, the same way decisions are made in individual cells. While this means changes may take months or even years to be proposed, discussed, modified, and finally passed, it also means that everyone within the tradition is part of the decision-making process.

Core Beliefs and Values

Like Wicca, Reclaiming has very little dogma. Unlike Wicca, the Reclaiming Collective has a public statement of values that clearly and concisely lays out the essentials of what they believe and do. This document, which is called the Principles of Unity, is not very long, so I’m going to lay it out in its entirety here.

This is the most recent version of the Principles of Unity, taken from the Reclaiming Collective website in February 2021:

“The values of the Reclaiming tradition stem from our understanding that the earth is alive and all of life is sacred and interconnected. We see the Goddess as immanent in the earth’s cycles of birth, growth, death, decay and regeneration. Our practice arises from a deep, spiritual commitment to the earth, to healing and to the linking of magic with political action.

Each of us embodies the divine. Our ultimate spiritual authority is within, and we need no other person to interpret the sacred to us. We foster the questioning attitude, and honor intellectual, spiritual and creative freedom.

We are an evolving, dynamic tradition and proudly call ourselves Witches. Our diverse practices and experiences of the divine weave a tapestry of many different threads. We include those who honor Mysterious Ones, Goddesses, and Gods of myriad expressions, genders, and states of being, remembering that mystery goes beyond form. Our community rituals are participatory and ecstatic, celebrating the cycles of the seasons and our lives, and raising energy for personal, collective and earth healing.

We know that everyone can do the life-changing, world-renewing work of magic, the art of changing consciousness at will. We strive to teach and practice in ways that foster personal and collective empowerment, to model shared power and to open leadership roles to all. We make decisions by consensus, and balance individual autonomy with social responsibility.

Our tradition honors the wild, and calls for service to the earth and the community. We work in diverse ways, including nonviolent direct action, for all forms of justice: environmental, social, political, racial, gender and economic. We are an anti-racist tradition that strives to uplift and center BIPOC voices (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). Our feminism includes a radical analysis of power, seeing all systems of oppression as interrelated, rooted in structures of domination and control.

We welcome all genders, all gender histories, all races, all ages and sexual orientations and all those differences of life situation, background, and ability that increase our diversity. We strive to make our public rituals and events accessible and safe. We try to balance the need to be justly compensated for our labor with our commitment to make our work available to people of all economic levels.

All living beings are worthy of respect. All are supported by the sacred elements of air, fire, water and earth. We work to create and sustain communities and cultures that embody our values, that can help to heal the wounds of the earth and her peoples, and that can sustain us and nurture future generations.”

The Principles of Unity were originally written in 1997, to create a sense of cohesion as the Reclaiming Collective grew and diversified. However, the Principles have not remained constant since the 1990s. They have been rewritten multiple times as the Reclaiming tradition has grown and the needs of its members have changed. Like everything else within the tradition, the Principles of Unity are not beyond scrutiny, critical analysis, and reform.

For example, in 2020 the wording of the Principles of Unity was changed to affirm diverse forms of social justice work — including but not limited to non-violent action — and to express a more firm anti-racist attitude that seeks to uplift BIPOC. This was a major change, as the previous version of the document explicitly called for non-violence and included a paraphrased version of the Rede (often called the Wiccan Rede), “Harm none, and do what you will.” This change was made via consensus by BIRCH, after a series of discussions about the meaning of non-violence and the need to make space for other types of activism.

Aside from the Principles of Unity, there are no hard and fast rules for Reclaiming belief. As Irisanya Moon says in her book on the tradition, “There is no typical Reclaiming Witch.”

Important Deities and Spirits

Just as with belief and values, views on deity within Reclaiming are extremely diverse. A member of this tradition might be a monist, a polytheist, a pantheist, an agnostic, or even a nontheist. (Note that nontheism is different from atheism — while atheism typically includes a rejection of religion, nontheism allows for meaningful religious experience without belief in a higher power.)

The Principles of Unity state that the Goddess is immanent in the earth’s cycles. For some, this means that the earth is a manifestation of the Great Goddess, the source of all life. For others, the Goddess is seen as a symbol that represents the interconnected nature of all life, rather than being literally understood as a personified deity. And, of course, there are many, many people whose views fall somewhere in between.

In her book The Spiral Dance, Starhawk points out that the deities we worship function as metaphors, allowing us to connect with that which cannot be comprehended in its entirety. “The symbols and attributes associated with the Goddess… engage us emotionally,” she says. “We know the Goddess is not the moon — but we still thrill to its light glinting through the branches. We know the Goddess is not a woman, but we respond with love as if She were, and so connect emotionally with all the abstract qualities behind the symbol.”

Here’s another quote from The Spiral Dance that sums up this view of deity: “I have spoken of the Goddess as a psychological symbol and also as manifest reality. She is both. She exists, and we create Her.”

In that book, Starhawk proposes a perspective on deity that combines Wiccan and Feri theology. Starhawk’s Goddess encompasses both the Star Goddess worshiped in Feri — God Herself, the divine source of all things — and the Wiccan Goddess — Earth Mother and Queen of the Moon. This Goddess’s consort, known as the God, is similar to the Wiccan God, but includes aspects of Feri deities like the Blue God.

For some, this model of deity is the basis of their practice, while others prefer to use other means to connect with That-Which-Cannot-Be-Known. Someone may consider themselves a part of Reclaiming and be a devotee of Aphrodite, or Thor, or Osiris, or any of countless other personified deities.

Reclaiming Practice

As I said earlier, Reclaiming began with classes in magic theory, and teaching and learning are still important parts of the tradition. The basic, entry-level course that most members of the tradition take is called Elements of Magic. In this class, students explore the five elements — air, fire, water, earth, and spirit — and how these elements relate to different aspects of Reclaiming practice. Though most members of the tradition will take the Elements of Magic class, this is not a requirement.

After completing Elements of Magic, Reclaiming pagans may or may not choose to take other classes, including but not limited to: the Iron Pentacle (mastering the five points of Sex, Pride, Self, Power, and Passion and bringing them into balance), Pearl Pentacle (mastering the points of Love, Law, Knowledge, Liberation/Power, and Wisdom and embodying these qualities in relationships with others), Rites of Passage (a class that focuses on initiation and rewriting your own narrative), and Communities (a class that teaches the skills necessary to work in a community, such as conflict resolution and ritual planning).

If you’ve read my post on the Feri tradition, you probably recognize the Iron and Pearl Pentacles. This is another example of how Feri has influenced Reclaiming.

Another place where the teaching/learning element of Reclaiming shows up is in Witchcamp. Witchcamp is an intensive spiritual retreat, typically held over a period of several days in a natural setting away from cities. (However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, some covens are now offering virtual Witchcamps). Because each Witchcamp is run by a different coven, with different teachers, there is a lot of variation in what they teach and what kind of work campers do.

Each individual camp has a main theme — some camps keep the same theme every time, while others choose a new theme each year. Some camps are adults-only, while others are family-oriented and welcome parents with children. Typically, campers will have several classes to choose from in the mornings and afternoons, with group rituals in the evenings.

Speaking of ritual, this brings us to another important part of Reclaiming practice: ecstatic ritual. The goal of most Reclaiming rituals is to connect with the divine by achieving a state of ecstasy.

Irisanya Moon says that Reclaiming rituals often use what she calls the “EIEIO” framework: Ecstatic (involving an altered state of consciousness — the transcendent ecstasy of touching the divine), Improvisational (though there may be a basic ritual outline, there is an openness to acting in the spirit of the moment), Ensemble (rituals are held in groups, often with rotating roles), Inspired (taking inspiration from mythology, personal experience, or current events), and Organic (developing naturally, even if that means going off-script). This framework is similar to the rituals Starhawk describes in her writing.

There are no officially recognized holidays in Reclaiming, but many members of the tradition celebrate the Wheel of the Year, similar to Wiccans. The most famous example of this is the annual Spiral Dance ritual held each Samhain in California, with smaller versions observed by covens around the world.

Further Reading

If you are interested in Reclaiming, I recommend starting with the book Reclaiming Witchcraft by Irisanya Moon. This is an excellent, short introduction to the tradition. After that, it’s probably worth checking out some of Starhawk’s work — I recommend starting with The Spiral Dance.

At this point, if you still feel like this is the right path for you, the next step I would recommend is to take the Elements of Magic class. If you live in a big city, it may be offered in-person near you — if not, look around online and see if you can find a virtual version. Accessibility is huge to Reclaiming pagans, and many teachers offer scholarships and price their classes on a sliding scale, so you should be able to find a class no matter what your budget is.

If you can’t find an Elements of Magic class, there is a book called Elements of Magic: Reclaiming Earth, Air, Fire, Water & Spirit, edited by Jane Meredith and Gede Parma, which provides lessons and activities from experienced teachers of the class. Teaching yourself is always going to be more difficult than learning from someone else, but it’s better than nothing!

Resources:

The Spiral Dance by Starhawk

Reclaiming Witchcraft by Irisanya Moon

The Reclaiming Collective website, reclaimingcollective.wordpress.com

cutewitch772 on YouTube (a member of the tradition who has several very informative videos on Reclaiming, told from an insider perspective)

[joannalannister]

Anonymous asked:

Hey there, Lauren! I love your blog and metas! I have a question for you, in terms of the book, could you tell me when and where Daenerys shows signs of being a tyrant or a fascist? I see lots of metas say that she is, but from what I've read, I don't see any signs of that? Sure, she kills her enemies, but what powerful monarch doesn't? I just feel like the fandom has a very biased and double standard hatred when it comes to her, and I would like your opinion! Thank you!

Before I answer your question, we need some sort of working definition of fascism. To achieve this, I would like to quote a disabled person who helped lead the fight against fascism for years, and who died in the line of duty:

Over a year and a half ago I said this [...]: "The militarists in Berlin, and Rome and Tokyo started this war, but the massed angered forces of common humanity will finish it."

Today that prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled. The massed, angered forces of common humanity are on the march. They are going forward [...] 

We will have no truck with Fascism in any way, in any shape or manner. We will permit no vestige of Fascism to remain. [...]

In every country conquered by the Nazis and the Fascists, or the Japanese militarists, the people have been reduced to the status of slaves or chattels.

It is our determination to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

We have started to make good on that promise. I am sorry if I step on the toes of those Americans who, playing party politics at home, call that kind of foreign policy “crazy altruism” and “starry-eyed dreaming.”

--President Franklin D. Roosevelt, July 28th, 1943 Fireside Chat

What did the fascist Nazi Party stand for in WWII?

Historically, there was no Nazi Party apart from their racial and social agenda. It was a party founded on racial distinctions, with a vision to dramatically transform their society. The Nazis disliked and persecuted anyone who they did not consider Aryan. They persecuted and killed Jewish people, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and communists, and they wanted to eliminate people with mental or physical ailments. The Nazis pushed women out of the workplace and actively promoted patriarchy. [x]

But where does GRRM come into this?

I wasn’t a complete pacifist; I couldn’t claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II. But Vietnam was the only war on the menu. [x]

GRRM’s ethical views are at their clearest and most concise while discussing slavery and dehumanization in his (most excellent and highly recommended) vampire novel, Fevre Dream:

I never held much with slavery […]. You can’t just go… usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.

Some things are worth fighting for. Fascism requires opposition, some form of opposition, or it will steamroller all over you. 

My regret now is not that I stayed my arm, but that I remained aloof in my window while others protested peacefully outside. It would be naïve to think that those marching in neo-Nazi parades could have a change of heart from such efforts, but I am more concerned with those who are not marching for anything. We must convince the apathetic to care, and stop those who are walking down the path of hatred before it becomes too late.

--David Olin, The View from My Window, Berkeley 2018, written for the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity 

Now, let me apply this to ASOIAF piece by piece. 

In every country conquered [...] the people have been reduced to the status of slaves or chattels.

This is Tywin. This is Tywin enslaving people as part of his militaristic campaign of aggressive force in the Riverlands. This is Tywin sanctioning the capture and torture of innocent people. This is Tywin “using” other kinds of people and disregarding the fact that they are human beings. This is Tywin enslaving Arya Stark. This is Tywin impressing people to work in his gold mines on a whim, as we learn in AGOT. This is Tywin reducing people to the status of slaves or chattels. This is Tywin. 

I don’t know how many different ways I can say it, but as I’ve said before and will say again: Tywin is the character in the ASOIAF books who most prominently espouses fascist ideology. 

There are other characters in the main series -- Roose Bolton and Randyll Tarly, for example -- who also exhibit characteristics of fascist ideology, but I would argue that it is Tywin who is the fascist poster boy of ASOIAF ... and it is also Tywin who is one of the main villains who is drawing humanity’s attention south away from the true threat of the Others, who wish to turn every living thing into their slaves and playthings. (Littlefinger also comes to mind.) Tywin is an unwitting general in the Others’ army. Tywin is fighting the Others’ Campaign of Dehumanization on their behalf. 

The Nazis disliked and persecuted anyone who they did not consider Aryan. 

Substitute “Aryan” for “Lannister” and this is Tywin. “a Lannister, and worth more.” It is Tywin who pushes an agenda of Lannister superiority and it is Tywin to whom non-Lannisters aren’t human, to the point that he had to marry his own cousin. He dislikes non-Lannisters so much he had to marry his own cousin!!!! It’s Tywin who passed down his obsession with blood purity to his children to the point that they literally have to fuck each other. It’s Tywin who puts his House (a proxy for his race) above the individuals in it; it’s Tywin who doesn’t care if Cersei and Jaime and Tyrion are ground to dust under his disgusting ideology as long as House Lannister reigns supreme. 

"Spice soldiers and cheese lords," his lord father called them, with contempt. 

This is Tywin. 

Non-Lannisters aren’t fully human to Tywin. This is fascist ideology!!!!

It was a party founded on racial distinctions

This is Tywin and Kevan, refusing to allow the Westerlings to marry into their family because of “doubtful blood”!!!!! (”Ser Kevan seldom had a thought that Lord Tywin had not had first.”) 

It was a party founded on racial distinctions

This is Tywin and his refusal to allow a betrothal between Jaime and Elia. 

they wanted to eliminate people with mental or physical ailments. 

This is Tywin and his hatred toward disabled Tyrion. This is Tywin and his refusal to allow a betrothal between Jaime and disabled Elia. 

The Nazis pushed women out of the workplace and actively promoted patriarchy.

This is Tywin. This is Randyll hating on Brienne of Tarth. (And you can bet your ass Tywin doesn’t approve of women with swords.) 

I don’t know how many ways I can say it: Tywin and others like him are the fascists. 

Tywin is one of the cold fucks the AGOT prologue warns us about in the very beginning: “the real enemy is the cold.” 

The central conflict of ASOIAF is between the living (the fire) and the dead (the cold), those who would recognize your humanity and those who won’t. 

It is our determination to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate

^^ This is Daenerys Targaryen ^^

Daenerys Targaryen is a freedom fighter who kills slavers in the books. 

Her breakup of the economic system of Essos (meaning SLAVERY) is more akin to a communist revolution than a fascist takeover imo. Daenerys associates herself with people of all races, all classes. She gives Missandei, who canonically has dark skin in the books, a place as one of her closest advisors. Unlike Tywin, Daenerys is not pushing an agenda of Targaryen superiority. 

Daenerys is not perfect. She does not always get it right. Daenerys has got some things wrong. But I don’t think there has been any other option for Daenerys. You ... you can’t just look the other way when evil men are crucifying children, and I truly do not think that non-violent opposition would change anything in Essos. “Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see?” 

Sometimes innocents like Hazzea have died on Daenerys’s journey. 

And I fully believe that more people are going to die in TWOW, and that Daenerys will hold herself responsible, whether she is or not. I know that TWOW will give all the antis of every character a lot of ammunition. TWOW is going to be a dark and depressing book. 

I think that Daenerys is going to reach a very low point in TWOW, just as Tyrion is nose-diving in ADWD, but I think that’s just what GRRM does with his greatest heroes. It’s the moment in a movie when the hero falls off the cliff, and the Evil Villain starts cackling maniacally and you think all is lost, and then you see the hero’s hand reach up over the edge and the music crescendos as the hero pulls himself up. Except the real villains that GRRMs heroes are battling are themselves. The cliff is a metaphor for our darkest impulses. 

Characters tell Dany in AGOT that “she is nothing” but Dany’s story is about proving them wrong. It’s about her finding her own dignity and worth as a human being out on the Dothraki Sea, and becoming the master of her own fate. As her story progresses, she helps others to do the same, helping people to rediscover their dignity, to regain their names (or take new ones), to find the humanity that was stolen from them. 

(This is why it’s so important to me that her story intersect with zombie!Jon, so that she can help a dead man remember what it is to be human and remember why it all matters. Because if none of it matters ... if a man can’t find a fuck to give, well, that’s Tywin Lannister, who was a cold dead man long before Tyrion shot him.) 

I brought up FDR in the beginning of this post. Although FDR died before GRRM was born, he was one of the great American cultural figures of the 20th century and I have no doubt FDR’s legacy was a formative influence on GRRM. And that’s the thing - so many of these, these great American cultural figures of GRRM’s life died before their work was completed: FDR, JFK, MLK, so many others... The promised land is somewhere ahead of us, despite the opposition making accusations of “crazy altruism” and “starry-eyed dreaming.” No one is going to drive us there and drop us off; we have to get there by ourselves, and the journey isn’t an easy one. It’s a place we have to keep striving for, working for. A dream of spring...

It’s not Daenerys’s destiny, I think, to rule humanity in the long term; Dany’s destiny is, I think, to make sure that humanity doesn’t, well, lose their humanity. To make sure that humanity doesn’t fall into eldritch slavery.

The Others would make us automatons in their icy, inhuman regime. The Others would steam-roller all over humanity, and take away humanity’s freedom to choose, as Tywin Lannister tries to do to his children, trying to take all of their choices away and control them completely. The Others would take away our self-determination, our freedom to choose good or evil, our freedom to be the rulers of our own fate. 

I don’t think it’s Daenerys job to be a ruler in the end. I think she’s fighting evil now so that other people can keep fighting that good-and-evil “human heart in conflict with itself” fight long after she’s gone ... I’ve never believed in a “Targaryen restoration” ending although I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to it. 

Like Moses, Daenerys won’t lead us into the promised land ... we have to get there ourselves. 

And I’ve strayed from your question into a topic that’s more interesting to me because I cannot fucking belieeeeeeve that you are even asking me if the compassionate, caring, teenage-girl, sexual-abuse-survivor, messiah-figure Daenerys Targaryen is a fucking fascist when everything Daenerys “the fire is mine” Targaryen does is in narrative opposition to Certified Fucking Fascist Tywin Racist Lannister oh my god I cannot believe this is where we’ve come to as a fandom, I cannot fucking belieeeeeeve. 

Anon. Honey. Baby. I say this gently, with love: Whyyyyyyyyy are you reading “Daenerys is a fascist” metas? That didn’t even work on the show. 

When I googled “Daenerys Targaryen fascist” to try and figure out what you could possibly be reading to argue against it, the top result is an alt-right thinkpiece website about how dangerous Dany was all along in freeing slaves!!!! And the next results are people who think the iron throne actually matters when GRRM himself has said that the political war is a red herring. 

The endgame rulers don’t even particularly matter because what matters in the end is that humanity wins against the Others and we still have control over ourselves, what matters is for that human heart conflict to continue to exist inside ourselves and that we rule over that conflict inside ourselves. 

"We all must choose," she proclaimed.

Practice some self-care; go read Armageddon Rag, and remember this: TWOW is not going to save us. 

[popwasabi]

“Joker” Review: Send in the (Problematic) Clowns

Directed by Todd Philips

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beets, Frances Conroy

 “Joker,” on paper at least, has a message most us can all agree on.

Over the last five or six years, mental health has been a subject of increasing importance for a variety of reasons from millennial burnout, substance abuse, increases in suicide and the stigma is slowly dying away. People are more concerned than ever about it and, generally speaking, everyone wants the system to do better at addressing it in society.

(”Office Space” continues to be more and more relatable every year...)

Throughout its two-hour runtime “Joker” makes the case for better mental healthcare and a society that’s more empathetic to the mentally ill. For some viewers this is a much-needed discussion on a complicated topic through the medium of pop culture’s most famous psychopath. 

For others (me), the problem is it goes about this in an extremely problematic way that grossly mischaracterizes the problem, the people afflicted by it and namely who the victims really are, making some of the pre-film controversy unfortunately not all too inaccurate.

“Joker” takes place in early 1980s where a man named Arthur Fleck cares for his disabled mother in an increasingly hostile Gotham battling the unfair social structures of society. Arthur struggles with his mental health, seeing a social worker each week, taking multiple psychoactive drugs to keep his mind intact, and failing to keep down a Tourette like laugh that estranges those around him. As the world gets increasingly more difficult to live in around him Arthur begins to see himself in a new way and wonder’s what the point of participating any longer in it, thus beginning a series of events that will change his life and the city forever.

One of the core appeals of Gotham’s most sadistic psychopath, The Joker, has always been that the motives behind his violence have rarely had a clear reason behind them.

Other than to piss off Batman, The Joker just kind of does things because he can and kills for the exact same reasons. There’s no reasoning behind it, he just doesn’t believe in much of anything. It’s just chaos and he loves it. There’s some twisted nihilistic appeal to that in a cruel world that relentlessly reminds us many times of it and it’s what made the Clown Prince of Gotham such an iconic villain across all forms of media.

Because we all kind of want to stop caring, even just a little.

(Iconic.)

But what happens when you try to give a character like this a reason behind his twisted psyche? Does it take away or enhance the character? Many writers have toyed with this concept but never concretely answered it whether it was Alan Moore alluding to him having a “bad day” in “Killing Joke,” or the intentionally vague and confusing backstory Christopher Nolan gave the character in “The Dark Knight.”

The question behind who The Joker is, and why he is, is never truly answered in any case. They still tend to keep it mysterious because well, giving a concrete reason to this character’s particular madness kind of takes away from what makes him interesting. To quote Ledger’s Joker he’s an “Agent of Chaos” and nothing more. The Joker doesn’t care so why should we?

(Let’s really not care about this version though. Like seriously. In fact, throw it in the trash and shoot it into the sun...)

But director Todd Philips decided to give the character his first real motive behind his psychosis in “Joker” and while it can be admirable that he attempted something no other writer or director has done, and in some small way has a positive message to it, the results is at best a boring slog of a movie and at worst a problematic depiction of the mentally ill.

“Joker” certainly get’s A-pluses in plenty of areas of course; Joaquin Phoenix probably deserves an Oscar for his twisted depiction of a pre-clown prince Joker as he fully takes on the character’s twisted, emaciated skin and Philips certainly creates a believable pre-Batman Gotham city with some effective Scorsese-esque shot creation and sets. The movie though is extremely predictable as nothing all that surprising happens from beginning to end. It’s just one shitty moment for Arthur after another, culminating with (SPOILER) Arthur’s encounter with a young Bruce Wayne that leads to the final moments of the film.

(Did we really need to put Bruce through this again onscreen? The MCU gave Uncle Ben a reprieve at least...)

I wish I could get into the more superficial reasons this movie doesn’t work, such as its overly self-serious dialogue, Philips making some perhaps unintentionally humorous moments in the movie but the problem is truly it’s muddled script that appears to not really understand what mental health issues look like and who the real victims are.

“Joker” appears to make the case that society has largely ignored and left behind those with this stigma, that we are responsible for not engaging with the problem actively and not caring about the problem. Throughout the film, Gotham and its inhabitants are relentlessly cruel to Arthur, sometimes to the point where it can be over the top, showing that this is what we do to people like Arthur in the real world. They are beaten both physically and mentally and we refuse to understand or acknowledge their existence and their problems.

In this way the film almost endorses Arthur’s eventual turn to violence as the price paid for ignoring people like this.

(I’m amazed how literal some of these memes ended up being after watching this movie...)

Again, the problem with this film isn’t that this isn’t a tremendous issue in society because it is; suicide rates are climbing, despite progress in mental health awareness many country’s still stigmatize it as a “you problem,” and healthcare in this country, well you know the drill. The problem is the film seems to make the claim that these folks who are left behind by these broken systems are in danger of becoming violent monsters and it’s fucking gross.

I cannot stress this enough when I say this but there is NO CONNECTION between mental health problems and an increase in violence. In fact, they are far more likely, ten times more likely in fact, to be the victims of the kind of monster The Joker is in this movie.

The idea that simply better healthcare will make those with mental health issues less likely to commit violence isn’t a new one. The NRA and other small-brained politicians (left and right) have been scapegoating them since the days of Columbine and our doofus of a “president” isn’t far behind in licking those boots. 

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, as protesters did walkouts to decry gun violence, the mental health “advocates” made a counter protest called “walk-up” encouraging students to talk to each other more and engage with the outcasts in their schools.

While I certainly can agree that we should all try to be nicer to each other instead of not at all, it grossly ignores the fact that the shooter, Nicholas Cruz, was reportedly abusive, sexist and racist to his fellow classmates. Tell me, in what world would it be smart or safe, especially for a female student, to engage with a guy like this? Cruz didn’t kill people because he had “mental health problems,” he killed people because he was evil asshole.

(Yup, these people definitely look just some misunderstood social outcasts who were just in need of a few more hugs and some happy pills. Yup....)

Again, I can’t stress this enough lack of mental healthcare doesn’t make super villains; it’s pure fiction like this movie. Throughout the film Arthur is bombarded with slight after slight after slight be it from the institutions that leave him in the dust or the people around him. The movie kind of wants to state that the intuitions need more help but weirdly at the same time shouldn’t be trusted as Arthur is openly hostile with them throughout the movie. It’s almost comical at times as after a while and some viewers might find themselves after a while going “ok, we get it. The world is really mean to this guy, when does he become The Joker?”

The point is though, the motives behind great acts of violence have rarely, if ever, been about not being able to get access to some guy’s prescription drugs. In fact, the truly mentally ill are far more likely to be a danger to themselves than to others (as stated in a few of these articles linked already).

But for argument’s sake let’s pretend that this is not meant to be a literal depiction of how mental healthcare in society has failed people. Let’s say its metaphorical instead, that those with mental health issues become monsters within their own minds, hell the movie kind of alludes to a bent reality that may or may not have happened within Arthur Fleck’s mind.

(It’s actually one of the few narrative choices I liked about this movie, so A for effort, Mr. Philips.)

The problem with that is that again it depicts the mentally ill as monsters instead of the victims of those kinds of people. The movie does make a point of depicting the system as monstrous but again a person like The Joker as a product of that is misleading of what is actually going on.

Depicting the mentally ill as monsters, be it metaphorical or literal, will do more harm than good to those who are afflicted by these issues.

While I do not subscribe to the idea, necessarily, that movies create shooters these films definitely don’t exist in a vacuum either. Afterall there are still d-bags who think Tyler Durden is the real hero of “Fight Club,” and idolize maniacs like Al Pacino’s “Scarface” because they’re “badass’s.” I went into this movie thinking the pre-trailer controversy was likely overblown but I came out of it thinking some incel asshole could absolutely find something to relate to in this particular version of The Joker.

This movie has proven to me that the Joker’s origins are simply best left mysterious. He is just best used as a stand-in for chaos and anarchy with no specific goals or ideologies. Though his psychosis has certainly been the stuff of speculation behind his motives for decades by the fans its never been about him being crazy so much as it is about him being the antithesis to Batman’s ridgid sense of law and order.

(Probably the best cinematic depiction of that clash of ideologies.)

The Joker is a fascinating character and there’s a reason fans have gravitated to him for so long and inspired plenty of writers, directors and actors to try their hand with him. But any amount of understanding regarding what’s going on with mental health in society will take you out of this movie almost instantly for most people.

I think fans of this movie have perhaps latched on to the right messages of the movie, namely that we do need to do better with mental health and the mentally ill in this country, and I definitely don’t disagree with that, but the conclusions this movie appears to come to just aren’t right and it makes the movie damn near unwatchable for myself at least.

I’ll close with this though, “Joker” is inspiring in one way and one way only for me and that’s that it may cause a change in the way Hollywood see’s this genre of movies. I’ve written extensively myself about how, at times, the MCU has too rigidly adhered to the blockbuster formula and created almost a factory-line style of movies for the general populace to devour but a film like this, that is enjoying quite a bit of success right now, could change the way major studios approach these characters.

(The blockbuster formula can be great though sometimes if done right. Exhibit A ^)

Superheroes are modern Greek myths these days and have tons of source material and nuance to mine for directors and writers. Restricting them just to simple heavily CGI, action blockbusters is a disservice to their extensive catalog of stories and the comic book writers that made them famous.

While “Joker” is definitely not my favorite comic book movie of all-time I can respect that it took the risk of doing something different and going against the grain of most of the rest of the genre. If it inspires Hollywood to greenlight newer and more unique depictions of these characters I’m all for it.

In the end though, “Joker” is a mess of a movie that sends some right messages but ultimately the wrong one. If you enjoyed it great, I won’t stop you but I do ask  you to think about how this movie could be twisted in the wrong ways as well.

After all, we live in a society...

 VERDICT:

2 out of 5

Can we all agree at least this is still the best version of The Clown Prince of Gotham?

[davidmann95]

I feel like public opinions on Superman is higher than its been for a while, thoughts?

I’m afraid I very thoroughly disagree. In fact, thinking about DC’s handling of Superman recently - a common topic of late-night brooding sessions - it really occurred to me what an absolutely hellish decade the dude’s had.

2008: Kurt Busiek leaves Superman, James Robinson takes over (according to some in the place of Mark Waid), the book immediately goes to shit. New Krypton later begins, the entire Superman line collectively understood among fandom as going to shit along with it.

2009: As a consequence of the aforementioned New Krypton situation, Superman is in neither Superman nor Action Comics for the majority of the year, both being taken over by - generously - C-listers.

2010: Superman: Earth One, I would sincerely argue the worst Superman comic of all time and one that even at the time drew snickering comparisons to Twilight, is DC’s major outreach towards the bookstore market. Young Justice begins to considerable approval, portraying him as essentially a deadbeat dad who refuses to acknowledge Superboy as family, or even acknowledge him period to the extent that can be helped until the season finale. New Krypton fades into Grounded, among the most widely reviled Superman stories ever.

2011: Smallville, the last ongoing TV series to star Clark Kent, ends; many (even if I’m not among them myself) are understandably enraged that Tom Welling never actually appears as Superman aside from a split-second shirt rip, seeing it as a betrayal of the premise of the series and ten years of buildup. Meanwhile, the comics reboot him with a Jim Lee design that, at arguable best, works in few hands but his own (or more honestly is flat-out bad). Grant Morrison’s seemingly sure-thing relaunch of Action Comics, while greatly enjoyed by some such as myself, rapidly faces negative comparisons to his All-Star Superman work, which paired with dismal showings for the character in Justice League and Superman proper, along with publisher statements attempting to reinforce him as a brooding, violent, lonely avenger, result in a substantial and enduring fan backlash.

2012: The reboot separation from Lois Lane and tone-deaf efforts towards making Superman cooler culminate in a painfully stiff new relationship with Wonder Woman, to even further fan backlash. Noted sexual harasser Eddie Berganza, already internally acknowledged by DC as such, is demoted and handed custody of the Superman books in what was apparently considered an appropriate punishment. Scott Lobdell, already under fire for his treatment of Starfire at the beginning of the New 52 and facing a generally tepid creative response to his DC work, including Superboy, is given Superman proper.

2013: Man of Steel debuts to…let’s say divisive results. Injustice becomes his most prominent video game incarnation since Superman 64 by default. Grant Morrison’s Action Comics concludes, with incoming Andy Diggle leaving the book before his first issue is even released, and ending up under Scott Lobdell for a bit before finally finding its way to Greg Pak.

2014: At the tail end of a mercifully pretty dang good year, with even the customary bloated crossover Doomed ending up better than most (in spite of a shoehorned in pair of instances of Superman being forced to kill to match the movies), Superman Unchained concludes after months of devastating delays, signalling the beginning of the end of the creative triumvirate of Scott Snyder/Jim Lee, Geoff Johns/John Romita Jr., and Greg Pak/Aaron Kuder/Jae Lee attempting to rehabilitate his comics image. Before long, Johns leaves his book to Gene Yang’s hands in what ended up an unpredictably disastrous tenure, while Pak and company are buried under crossovers.

2015: Truth begins to - aside from a headline-grabbing early segment by Pak and Kuder with Superman standing with protesters against police - near-universal hatred by the fanbase, seeing it as DC’s latest cringingly tone-deaf and desperate effort at making Superman conventionally cool, while severely undermining Lois Lane’ character in the process.

2016: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is released, almost immediately becoming the most ubiquitous cultural shorthand for ‘bad movie’ since Transformers. Tyler Hoechlin debuts as Superman on Supergirl to the most mainstream praise the character has received in literal decades, with the CW and WB responding by publicly stating that they have no intention of developing a series for him. Superman dies in the comics after a short and ignominious crossover, replaced - to be fair, to no small degree of fan acclaim, even if I didn’t share in the love - by his own past-continuity self, a state of late-90s X-Men-esque continuity bugfuckery lasting about a year. Superman: American Alien, the most generally well-received Superman story for years in either direction, concludes; its author would flee from public life the following year after being repeatedly accused of sexual assault.

2017: Justice League’s attempt at reorienting Superman towards a more classic take, while winning some praise, is generally useless in the face of critical antipathy towards the film and crushing financial failure relative to expectations, with the bulk of Superman-related discussion spinning out of it focusing on his unfortunate CGI mouth. Injustice 2 is released, with no ‘good’ universe Superman this time to contrast the games’ take on him as a tyrannical mass-murderer.

2018: Action Comics #1000 dropped to broadly positive results…with the exception of the story by the actual incoming writer of the line, which while I enjoyed it, was hated by a significant number of readers as far as I can tell. Additionally, if the new rumors are true, the team behind All-Star Superman had a story prepared for it that was spiked to avoid somehow clashing with Doomsday Clock - a company-steering comic advertised as being largely about him that has yet to feature him in any meaningful capacity one third of the way through aside from him cameoing having a nightmare - and if that’s true, whether as a matter of unfortunate logistics or ego, if there’s a metaphor for everything wrong with modern DC comics more potent than Superman being so profoundly screwed over for his 1000th issue on his 80th birthday for the sake of not maybe spiritually contradicting them doing more Watchmen knock-off comics, I can’t think of it. As of this writing, Superman is one of the two Justice Leaguers not officially known to have a movie in active development; by next year there will be TV shows starring Supergirl with Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane with Lex Luthor, and Jor-El’s father with Adam Strange, but no indications have emerged that Tyler Hoechlin might reemerge in any capacity, nevermind get his own series; aside from the Bendis run, the only major Superman comics project on the horizon is his one book for the Black Label (where Batman and Wonder Woman get two projects apiece, largely by fan-favorite creators), Superman: Year One by Frank Miller and Romita Jr., the former being the writer of the infamously racist Holy Terror.

So no. Superman is not doing good. Not on any front. There has been good stuff to be sure, but on the macro scale? Superman hasn’t been doing good in a very, very long time.

[canihldthemic]

Mirrors and Reflections: Calling out America's Social Systems Through Hip-Hop Activism

We black folk, our history and our present being, are a mirror of all the manifold experiences of America. What we want, What we represent, what we endure is what America is. If we black folk perish, America will perish. If America has forgotten her past, then let her look into the mirror of our consiousness and she will see the living past living in the present, for our memories go back, through our black folk of today, through the recollections of our black parents, and though the tales of slavery told by our  black grandparents, to the time when none of us, black or white fold are not blood or color, ans the ties that bind us are deeper than those that seprate us. The common road of hope which we all travelled has brought us into a stronger kinship than any words, laws, or legal claims.

Richard Wright, 12 Million Black Voices (1941)

I was never nonviolent. Never. I thought we should get our rights by any means necessary. I am just one of the people who’s sick of the social order, sick of the establishment, sick to my soul of it all. To me, America’s society is nothing but a cancer, and it must be exposed before it can be cured. I am not the doctor to cure it. All I can do is expose the sickness.

Nina Simone, What Happened Miss Simone? (2015)

Dismantling the Dichotomy

Since conception in the early 1970s, Hip Hop music has served as more than a music genre for pleasure within African American communities. Throughout time it has proven to be a source of liberation for the Black American community by: (1) giving black artists free-range to create sounds as eccentric or refined as they desired and (2) allowing them a space to express various narratives illustrating Black life in America. Critics of Hip Hop culture fail to recognize its multidimensionality by restricting it to a crude dichotomy between materialist rap and righteous rap. Additionally, they make the genre responsible for the many disparities experienced in Black communities. The purpose of this essay is to prove that claim incorrect by arguing that: Hiphop is not only a refined contemporary artform but also a vehicle  for social activism and a reflection of African American realities. My paper will continue as follows. First I will discuss the implications caused by socio-historical oppression of African American people. Next I will briefly discuss the history of Hip Hop and discuss the importance of music to people of the African Diaspora. Next, I will survey Hip Hop’s specific contributions as a mechanism for contemporary social activism and storytelling.

Nihilism + Stereotypes

It is apparent that social, political and economic systems in America institutionalize the oppression of Black people. Cornel West’s Race Matters: Nihilism in Black America, surveys the discussions surrounding the plight endured by Black Americans. In this paper he categorizes two schools of thought which provide reasoning for the plight. First, are the liberal structuralists who focus on the structural constraints imposed on the life chances of black people. They argue a sociological perspective that claims the root of disparities in Black communtites rests in  slavery, Jim Crowism, job and residential discrimnation, skewed unemployment rates, inadequate health care, and poor education. Their solution for this problem includes full employment, health, education and childcare programs, and broad affirmative action practices. Second, are the conservative behaviorist who highlight the behavioral impedements “on black upward mobility”. These theorists believe “the waning of  the Prostetant ethic --  hard work defer gratification, frugality, and responsibility — in much of black america '' is responsible for Black plight. Their solutions include promoting self help programs, black business expansion, and non-preferential job practices.

West takes these arguments a step further by claiming that these theories and solutions ignore three key components which make up this “crucial debate”. First, he says that  (1)“we must acknowledge that structure and behavior are inseparable, that institutions and values go hand in hand.” Second, he claims that culture is also a structure which contributes to economic and political development, “.. the economy and politics are not only influenced by values but also promote particular cultural ideals of the good life and good society.”Finally he argues that  we can’t ignore the psychological impacts that socio-historical occurrences and present prejudices have imposed on Black lives: “we must delve into the depth where neither leieral nor conservatice dare to tread, namely, into the murky waters of despair and dread that now flood the streets of black America. To talk about depressing statistics of unemployment, infant mortality, incarceration, teen pregnancy, and violent crime ….”, all of which contribute to a lack of hope, a sense of belonging and a disregard black life and property. At the intersection of these three concepts lies nihilism in Black America which West defines as:  “.... the lived experience of coping with a life of horrifying meaninglessness, hopelessness and (most importantly) lovelessness. Black people as both individuals and a collective nation have endured countless and constant experiences of oppression. These experiences have consequences to the individual (i.e. mental and physical health implications like depression and diabetes), the community (i.e intracommunal othering and internalized racism)  and those outside of it (i.e. stereotypical misconceptions of Black people, social/economic/political inequalities between races, discrimination and racism). West argues that throughout time oppressed communities have developed “cultural buffers” which are “cultural structures of meaning and feelings, religious institutions that embody values of service and sacrifice, love and care, disciple and excellence.” The creation of buffers serve as barriers against the threat of nihilism. Music and storytelling has always served as a buffer in Black culture.

History of Hip Hop: Traditional Storytelling to A Larger Than Life Culture

Hip Hop’s legacy began in the neighborhoods of the Bronx, NY in 1973. DJ Kool Herc is accredited to be the first person to popularize the genre with his innovative DJing techniques he performed at parties. By the mid-1970s, Hip-hop had had its first hit “Rapper's Delight” by the Sugar Hill Gang. From there, rap had evolved into a culture which included breakdancing, graffiti, and MCing. The musical component of Hip-hop culture is a combination of a number of African American music styles like jazz, soul, gospel and reggae. A deeper look into African history reveals a close relationship to the lyrical styles of African American rappers and African storytelling, “ While rap's history appears brief its relation to the African oral tradition, which provides rap with much of its current social significance, also roots rap in a long-standing history of oral historians, lyrical fetishism, and political advocacy.” (Blanchard,n.d). Furthermore, oral traditions hold great significance in West African religion, “ At the heart of the African oral tradition is the West African idea of nommo. In Malian Dogon cosmology, Nommo is the first human, a creation of the supreme deity, Amma, whose creative power lies in the generative property of the spoken word. As a philosophical concept, nommo is the animative ability of words and the delivery of words to act upon objects, giving life.” During the years of slavery, rap-like story telling was used as a mechanism to overcome subjugaton as slaves passed messages to one another by using metaphors and rhyming which crated negro spirituals. Once African Americans were freed from slavery musical storytelling was used to spread news, address issues within Black communties and served as a primary from of entertainment. During the Reconstruction era Blues and Jazz was utilized to protest poverty and social injustices, uplift communities and establish a sense of pride in being Black. During the Civil Rights Era soul music told stories of strife in Black communities and gave us hope to carry on following the death of Martin Luther King. Analyzing the songs from the aforementioned genres will reveal the realities of thousands of African American people of that time. This concept carries over to Hip Hop.

Hip-hop culture and rap music adapts these traditions to Black working Americans lifestyles and serves as a thread combining communities throughout the African Diaspora. As we reach recent years rap artists and performers have been able to make their platforms/personas as eccentric and creative as they so pleased. Over time the breadth of personas, lyrics and rap styles have grown from the syncopated funky electronic sounds of African Bambaataa, the nostalgic storytelling of LL Cool J, politically conscious artistic vibes of A Tribe Called Quest,  cool street-hustler styles of Biggie, flashy and sexually liberating rhymes of Lil Kim, the profoundly limitless low-slung funky hits of OutKast, the visionary productions of Missy Elliots to the groundbreaking everchanging genius of Kanye West.

Many Hip-hop enthusiasts, academics and rappers alike would agree that Hip Hop culture has lost its touch in recent years. Many accost that to the commodification and appropriation of the genre by record labels and the music industry. With the intentions to make Hip-hop more palatable to the masses, the music industry reframed Hip-hop culture which also stripped the genre’s historical function and value. But still, many rappers, both past and present, have consciously made efforts to use their work to protest against social, economic and political injustices. For example, OutKast's fourth studio album ,Stankonia, included their platinum selling single, B.O.B. (Bombs Over Baghdad), which still holds an immovable spot as Song of the Decade according to The Atlantic. It would take 1000 ears to dissect this song at first listen as it includes bombastic bass drums, a fast tempo, witty lyrics, a funky groove and not to mention a guitar solo. Initially you would think the song is talking about the international political actions taken by the U.S. in Baghdad, Iraq. However, a close look at the lyrics would show that the rap duo is actually talking about the poor living conditions they experience in the ghettos of Atlanta which include drug abuse, poverty and the poor health of the people who live there. Either way you analyze the song the two rap geniuses imaginatively take their listeners to their reality; which isn’t that pretty but somehow , through artistic expression, Outkast managed to create a hit that remains popular today. This sort of ability to be both creative and inciting social/political change is a theme that has not changed regardless of rap performers persona or their era in Hip-Hop history.

Even though Hip-Hop music instrumentilizes the same practices as other African American genres it is still regarded more negatively. So, what’s the difference?

Staring Into the Belly of the Beats: The Circulatory Relationship Between Rap and Society

The above question is quite loaded. Depending on the perspective of the person there can be a number of answers but the most widely agreed upon reason for Hip-hop being viewed so negatively is that it is a form of popularized media that perpetuates preconceived ideas of African American culture. Non-Black Americans who don’t share the Black American experience have a difficult time understanding our cultural practices, struggles and lives altogether. Moreover, widely distributed caricatures of Blackness in the media help to create stereotypical conceptions of Black identities. Hip-hop music and artists often time embody those personas which, without context, can be understood as the root for a lot of social issues (i.e. violent crimes, rape, robbery and sexual promiscuity). Linguist and scholar John McWhorter article, How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back, claims that:

“Many writers and thinkers see a kind of informed political engagement, even a revolutionary potential, in rap and hip-hop. They couldn’t be more wrong. By reinforcing the stereotypes that long hindered blacks, and by teaching young blacks that a thuggish adversarial stance is the properly “authentic” response to a presumptively racist society, rap retards black success.”

He goes on further by saying:

“How is it progressive to describe life as nothing but “bitches and money”? Or to tell impressionable black kids, who’d find every door open to them if they just worked hard and learned, that blowing a rival’s head off is “real”? How helpful is rap’s sexism in a community plagued by rampant illegitimacy and an excruciatingly low marriage rate?”

“Anyone who sees such behavior as a path to a better future— anyone, like Professor Dyson, who insists that hip-hop is an urgent “critique of a society that produces the need for the thug persona”— should step back and ask himself just where, exactly, the civil rights– era blacks might have gone wrong in lacking a hip-hop revolution. They created the world of equality, striving, and success I live and thrive in.

Hip-hop creates nothing.”

These arguments are very misleading as many rappers have been documented saying that they were against violence, especially within the Balck community. Also, this argument holds the victims of the oppressive institutions in this country responsible for their own misfortunes. For instance, McWorther purports:

“Now top rappers began to write edgy lyrics celebrating street warfare or drugs and promiscuity. Grandmaster Flash’s ominous 1982 hit, “The Message,” with its chorus, “It’s like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from going under,” marked the change in sensibility. The ultimate message of “The Message”—that ghetto life is so hopeless that an explosion of violence is both justified and imminent…”

This take on hip hop is quite contrary to the actual message in the song. The lyrics are not justifying violent behavior instead it is expressing the natural reaction of frustration to living conditions which seem insurmountable. Furthermore, stigmatizing the entire genre because of a portion of the song types which discuss violence, sexism, homophobia and the like is unreasonable. Tricia Rose’s Prophets of Rage: Rap Music and the politics of Black Cultural Expression argues just that:

These cultural forms are especially rich and pleasurable places where oppositional transcripts, or the "unofficial truths" are developed, refined, and rehearsed. These cultural responses to oppression are not safety valves that protect and sustain the machines of oppression. Quite to the contrary, these dances, languages, and musics produced communal bases of knowledge about social conditions, communal interpretations of them and quite often serve as the cultural glue that fosters communal resistance.”(p.100)

Some aspects of Hip Hop culture may reinstate the negative aspects of Black culture, but it is not the start nor is it the reason for disparities in Black communities; the systems are. These songs can serve as transcripts accounting the intimate realities lived by Black people everyday. Being that they are available to the public (and not as community-based as Jazz, Blues or Negro Spirituals) and aggressively critique the systems and corporations which opress them, they are more prone to be scrutinized. At the center of this scrutiny is fear of destabilization of the power structures and dominant social discourses of this country that are motivated by white supremacy, patriarchy and capitalist exploitation.  

However, American culture combines politics and popular culture which results in Hip Hop artists being some of the Black communities best social activists. There are several Hip-hop artists who have started and supported movements dedicated to serious issues like police brutality, massive incineration, and the HIV/AID epidemic.

Conclusion

“Hip Hop is not just a mirror of what is; it should also be a reflection of what can be”

- Barack Obama

In doing my research I found an alarming amount of white musical artists critiquing the styles, impact and quality of Hip hop music. In 2017 rapper Post Malone did an interview with Poland’s NewsOne where he gave his take on Hip Hop music:

“ If you're looking for lyrics-- if you're looking to cry ya’ know. If you're looking to think about life,don't listen to hip hop. There's great Hip Hop songs where they really talk about life and they really spit that real shit but right now, ya’ know, theres not a lot of people [rappers] talking about shit. Whenever I wanna cry I’ll sit and listen to Bob Dylan. I don’t listen to hip hop because hip hops fun… it brings people together in a beautiful happy way. Hip Hop is happy. I think this is a positive movement for hip hop because theres so much musicality in it now. You used to have people just talking.”

In a matter of 90 seconds this  platinum selling white rapper dismissed the work of his predecessors. Granted, Post Malone was referring to present day hip hop lacking emotion but that claim in itself is incorrect. The same year that he did this interview also marked the year that Jay-z released 4:44 and Kendrick Lamar released DAMN, Both of which involve intricate critiques on contemporary social justice issues, black masculinity, and race. In early 2020, white singer Billie Eilish’s Vogue cover story featured her critique on “rap posturing”:

“There’s a difference between lying in a song and writing a story. There are tons of songs where people are just lying. There’s a lot of that in rap right now, from people that I know who rap. It’s like, ‘I got my AK-47, and I’m fuckin’ . . .’ and I’m like, what? You don’t have a gun. ‘And all my bitches. . . .’ I’m like, which bitches? That’s posturing, and that’s not what I’m doing.

Both Eilish and Post Malone are Grammy Award winning, chart topping artists and playmakers in popular culture. Their opinions have the breadth to reach thousands of people and it’s quite disheartening to see that they are discrediting the very genre that has made them popular. Even though his observation is disappointing it is not surprising. Their positions on Hip hop are reflective of the overall erasure of contributions that Black Americans have made to all arenas of this nation for centuries. Their privilege as white culture contributors allow them to appropriate and capitalize  from African American culture and still benefit from having white skin all while negatively critiquing an artform that has been the foundation for Black culture for 50 years.

To the outsider, which includes all people who don’t live through or have proximity to  the Black experience, Hip Hop culture and rap music is processed as a mechanism to propagate violent, oversexualized, sexist and materialistic lifestyles. It is quite dismissive for cultural critics, white americans and Hip-Hop adversaries to negate the power that lies in hip hop as not only an art form and a way of political/social critic.Hip Hop culture is the materialized reality of the Black experience which can be both beautiful and ugly. Throughout time, Hip Hop artists have perfected the artform  of capturing the vulnerable contemporary Black narratives and repurposing them to motivate social change within our communities. It has also served as a mechanism for thousands of Black artists to reach economic heights that they would otherwise be unable to reach if Hip Hop wasn’t as commodifiable as it is within this society.

For every time that we have contributed to society there are times where this society has deemed our lives insignificant. Throughout history we have been advised to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps to gain economic and social standing within this country. However, the products that come from the monetization of our resources, talents and connections are depreciated. Kanye West’s “All Falls Down'', analyzes the woes of living as a Black person in America and the ways in which we have worked to overcome them. The second verse of his platinum single (fact check) corroborates with my conclusive claim :

Man I promise, I'm so self conscious

That's why you always see me with at least one of my watches

Rollies and Pasha's done drove me crazy

I can't even pronounce nothing, pass that versace!

Then I spent 400 bucks on this

Just to be like nigga you ain't up on this!

And I can't even go to the grocery store

Without some one's that's clean and a shirt with a team

It seems we living the american dream

But the people highest up got the lowest self esteemThe prettiest people do the ugliest things

For the road to riches and diamond rings

We shine because they hate us, floss cause they degrade us

We trying to buy back our 40 acres

And for that paper, look how low we a'stoop

Even if you in a Benz, you still a nigga in a coop/coupe

Oh when it all, it all falls down

This nation and its institutions have inflicted psychological, physical and systematic burdens on Black people. Throughout time we have adapted to these burdens by being a part of the very system that is breaking us down. Whether we cope by resisting and critiquing the oppressive system we are a part of through music or submit to the systems, we are torn down.

On a progressive note I think the study of Hip-Hop music history as a means to educate students on sociology and social justice would be beneficial to the 21st century student. The intricacies of rap music will allow a critical perspective on Black life that can’t be portrayed in pictures, books or speeches. Perhaps understanding social injustices in this culture from a Hip-Hop perspective will motivate more of our young leaders to be pioneers for change.

[therewasabrowncrow]

Doodled the chapter “Feminist safe spaces in the digital age”- from Building a Digital Girl Army:The cultivation of feminist safe spaces online by  Rosemary Clark-Parsons. 

Text:

Feminist Safe Spaces In The Digital Age

The concept of safe space emerged in the late twentieth century in the United States with the rise of the “new social movements,” the feminist, queer, and anti-racist movements whose participants prioritized sociopolitical and cultural concerns, such as identity based discrimination and violence, over economic inequalities (Melucci, 1989). 

Within the context of the US women’s liberation movement during the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called “second wave” of feminism, safe spaces promoted freedom from violence and harassment and, as Kenney (2001) explains, provided “a certain license to speak and act freely, form collective strength, and generate strategies for resistance” (p. 24). The archetypal feminist safe space was the separatist, women-only, consciousness-raising group,where the license to speak and act freely was instated not merely for the therapeutic purposes of voicing personal experiences but also “to get to the most radical truths about the situation of women in order to take radical action” (Sarachild, 1978), to identify the systematic injustices women face in order to collectively organize for change. In this way, Civil Rights-era feminist safe spaces functioned as what social movement scholars have called free spaces, “small-scale settings within a community or movement that are removed from the direct control of dominant groups, are voluntarily participated in, and generate the cultural challenge that precedes or accompanies political mobilization” (Polletta, 1999: 1). 

Second-wave feminist safe spaces were convened to operate as one version of Melucci’s (1989) “submerged networks,” where activists could meet outside the public eye to discuss social issues, develop frameworks for interpreting them, and organize collective action accordingly. While formal and informal impediments curtailed women’s participation in the public sphere, as Fraser (1992) argues, feminist safe spaces operated as subaltern counterpublic spheres or “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter discourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (p. 67). Successful second-wave feminist counterpublics, as Fraser argues, required active maintenance; members had to work to expose and remedy obstacles to participatory parity in order to create a space conducive to free expression. The cultivation of safe, communal spaces for free and open expression remains a key political priority among contemporary feminists organizing in the age of digital media. Keller (2016), in her ethnographic study of girl feminist bloggers, explores how blogs function as an accessible “discursive space” (p. 14), where young women develop feminist identities and alternative feminist histories through personal reflections and Clark-Parsons 2129 interactions with one another, forming a “networked counterpublic” (p. 80). Drawing on boyd’s (2014) theory of networked publics, Keller explains that unlike second-wave counterpublics, the networked counterpublics of girl feminist bloggers are persistent, replicable, searchable, and often, participants can remain invisible to one another. Due to their networked nature, online feminist counterpublics also have a greater capacity for growth, which, in turn, magnifies their ability to launch interventions on the broader public sphere (Keller, 2016). Feminist counterpublics networked across a variety of online platforms have mobilized highly visible collective action campaigns against online and offline misogyny and fostered transnational feminist communities. Rentschler (2014) highlights how digital feminist tactics, like hashtag feminism, feminist blogging, and the anti-street harassment app Hollaback, create “feminist networks of response-ability to rape culture” (p. 68), which cultivate the capacity for collective responses to individual experiences of sexual violence. In a case study that exemplifies this networked response-ability, Mendes (2015) traces how the networked counterpublic of the feminist blogosphere was crucial for sparking SlutWalk, a global street protest movement against sexual violence and rape culture that began in 2011; the same networks later became critical spaces for feminists to debate the intersectional politics of the movement’s tactics and messages. Another study conducted by Rentschler and Thrift (2015) demonstrates how “networked community building” (p. 330) has unfolded through the viral spread of feminist memes, like the 2012 Mitt Romney-inspired “Binders Full of Women” meme; by constructing and circulating memes, feminists not only engage in collective acts of political critique but also foster communal ties through shared humor that cut across differences. Keller et al. (2016) refer to communal ties formed via social media among women and girls as “affective solidarities,” or connections rooted in emotional responses to shared oppressive experiences, such as sexual violence. In her research on the Australian feminist blogosphere, Shaw (2013), expanding on the work of Herring et al., (2002), highlights the range of strategies feminist bloggers use to successfully defend these communal ties against disruptive trolls and violent harassers, including moderation, exposure, and humor. 

Focusing on the inner group conflict, Loza (2014) traces how feminists of color, through networked campaigns like #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, push feminist counterpublics toward more reflexive and inclusive community practices. Collective efforts to develop digital tools for navigating and interrupting online harassment compliment these networked community-building efforts, including FemTechNet’s (2017) Center for Solutions to Online Violence, a digital hub for rapid response and educational resources. Existing scholarship outlines the political work feminist counterpublics perform in a digital public sphere where gender-based harassment has become an established norm.

Missing, however, is an empirical focus on private digital feminist spaces formed with the intention of cultivating closed-off, separatist, safe spaces, whose protective boundaries filter harassment and foster open dialog about questions, topics, and concerns marginalized within the public sphere. This tactic, which more closely resembles the “submerged networks” (Melucci, 1989) of second-wave feminist safe spaces than publicly accessible feminist blogs, hashtags, and apps, has become a popular practice among contemporary feminists. A search for “feminist” on Facebook, for example, reveals hundreds of “closed” groups that range in theme from general feminist discussion to  particular feminist movements, issues, identities, and demographics. Facebook users can only join and see content published in a closed group after being approved by an existing member. “Secret” groups like Girl Army are more clandestine; only members can find the group through Facebook’s search function and new members must be invited by existing members and approved by moderators. Significantly for my purposes here, across their group descriptions, dozens of these communities purport to be “safe spaces.”

How do feminists use the Facebook group platform to cultivate safe spaces online? As Barrett (2010) laments, the ambiguity of “safe space,” while enabling a certain degree of flexibility in practice, has led the term to become “an overused by undertheorized metaphor” (1) in both academic and activist discourses, a shortcut for gesturing toward presumably shared attitudes regarding the openness of a space to certain identities and ideologies. “Safe space,” in other words, is too often treated as a closed concept that can be taken up and transplanted across a variety of contexts, without much adaptation, specification, or reflection, which, in turn, may cause in-group conflict or, worse, endanger participants’ physical and psychological wellbeing (Stengel, 2010). Given, as Keller (2016) argues, networked counterpublic’s capacity for exponential growth, one can imagine how maintaining safe space in a Facebook group might become problematic without constant moderation and self-reflexivity; the most popular closed feminist Facebook groups have upwards of 3000 members. What political functions do these spaces fulfill? What role do they play in members’ everyday lives? What does safety mean in the context of a Facebook group with hundreds or even thousands of members, who bring with them a variety of opinions, experiences, and identities and whose personally identifying information is often readily accessible? What ideal for safety do these Facebook feminists strive for through their group participation and are they successful? To begin answering these questions, I follow the Roestone Collective’s (2014) call for scholars and activists to “treat safe space as a living concept, identifying tendencies and variations in its use, and recognizing its situatedness in multiple contexts” (p. 1347).

Instead of treating “safe space” as a closed concept or particular formation that can be implemented and identified across different settings, the Roestone Collective reconceptualizes safe space as “relational work” (p. 1348), as constantly unfolding social processes rather than sites with structures that preexist their participants’ interactions. While cautioning against a normative theory of how safe spaces should be cultivated, the Roestone Collective highlights certain “paradoxes” that emerge from the relational work required to cultivate a safe space in any context, although the specifics of these processes vary according to how notions of “safety” and “danger” are constructed in different settings. 

According to the Collective, the relational work invested into safe spaces involves both reifying the binaries that marginalize groups in order to create a space explicitly for them and drawing inevitably exclusionary boundaries around the people that space is meant to protect and uplift. The Collective’s aim is not, however, to suggest that safe spaces should not exist; rather, by framing safe spaces as constantly in flux and always already incomplete, they direct researchers’ attention toward the processes through which safe spaces are cultivated and encourage safe space organizers to incorporate reflexivity in their cultivation practices.

Digital media, however, are conspicuously absent from the Roestone Collective’s (2014) analysis, despite their writing in a time when the Internet has radically reconfigured the relational work behind everyday interactions and their consideration of the role non-human actors can play in safe space networks. Here, following the lead of existing scholarship on publicly accessible online feminist communities, I use Fraser’s (1992) conceptualization of subaltern counterpublics as an entry point for examining the ways in which Girl Army members discursively and technologically draw boundaries around their secret Facebook group as a feminist safe space. Drawing on interviews and 9 months of ethnographic fieldwork, I argue that Girl Army has taken the shape of a networked, counterpublic, safe space, where participants “formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser, 1992: 67) through their boundary-maintenance work. Fraser’s emphasis on oppositional actions—counterpublics’ development of counter- discourses and identities—underscores the relational boundary work performed among members and between members and nonmembers to create their separatist safe space. This oppositional work reifies particular in-group and out-group binaries that, as the Roestone Collective (2014) argues, paradoxically maintain and undermine the space’s safety.

[tulanewritessound1]

#4 - Nicole Lincoln

When it comes to the topic of weaponizing sound, most of us will readily agree that using sound as a way to actively harm and abuse is immoral. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the basis that sound is somehow less violent than other forms of state-used weapons. Some believe that using sound is an effective, yet non-lethal, tool that is free to be used by the state, but others – myself included – are not sure how to feel about institutionalized violence through the means of sound. The topic discussed in Lily Hay Newman’s article, “This Is the Sound Cannon Used Against Protesters in Ferguson” is that the LRAD sound cannon used by SWAT forces to “pacify” large crowds may be a more violent than peaceful solution to crowd-control. Originally used in naval military campaigns, the sound cannons “cause immediate headaches and pain" by emitting powerful sound waves. Newman continues, her tone neutral yet mildly criticizing, “Since LRADs can blast above a person’s 120-decibel discomfort mark, and their 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss, there’s no telling what the consequences of encountering a LRAD may be for protesters.” This suggests that, although Newman feels that the sound cannon is one of the less lethal options for crowd-control, that it unfairly, permanently damages large swaths of people who don’t necessarily deserve it. In essence, her belief is that we should look to other solutions for large-scale crowd control, and that causing pain and/or damage to those crowds is not the way to go about that task. In my view, Newman may have wanted to go into harsher detail about the LRAD sound cannon and critique it to a further point, as her tone feels just barely restrained from outright objection. Being a security reporter, she’s not allowed to write an opinion piece, though she can shift the direction of the information through careful word choice. For example, she describes the Ferguson as a “peaceful demonstration” that seemingly only devolved into chaos once the police arrived (a clear idea of where she stands on that particular debate), and highlighted the fact that the institution brought their “actual guns” along with their metaphorical “big guns”, showing that the police weren’t afraid to use genuine violence alongside faux, “sound-based” weaponry. Although Newman might have not been able to go into grittier detail for the sake of her job, I think that the critiquing of arguably inhumane, institutional solutions to crowd control should be a regular part of journalism, and that just because the LRAD is sound-based doesn’t make it any less harmful than pepper spray or tear gas. Therefore, I would like to add to the conversation that we shouldn’t treat sound as a “soft” option for anything, just because it’s not the first thing we think of when we think “violence”. Sound can be just as harmful as a rubber bullet or a SWAT bat. Even if conveying a polar opinion in an article meant to inform isn’t strictly allowed, I believe that Newman (and everyone else reporting on this particular issue) should write an independent piece meant to bring attention to the true nature of using sound as a weapon, and not let it hide behind the curtain of innocence that sound allows.

[mhuchette15-blog]

Hozier: Singer-Songwriter or Activist?

I first heard Hozier at a music festival in Maryland a few summers ago. I decided to take the opportunity during what I thought was a filler act to grab something to eat before the main acts came on.  Little did I know that after his first song the hundreds of people within just 50 feet of me would be asking their friends who the guy performing was and gushing about his incredible voice.  Soon after the festival the impression of his performance fell to the depths of my memory and until the following summer, while on a road trip with my dad, it remained there. The peaceful catchy lyrics and calming melody of Take Me To Church drew me in once again and it became my favorite song for the next few months.  I went on a church mission trip a few weeks later and introduced it to my friends and they quickly became obsessed too.  We listened to it on repeat, only to find out later what the song is all about…

The lyrics:

The first time few times I heard Take Me To Church I took the lyrics for what they were at the surface level and I’m sure most of the other people at the festival were doing the same and paying more attention to the overall sound.  It wasn’t until I was in a car full of Catholics on my mission trip that I realized what Hozier was actually trying to present with his lyrics.  I’ve faced similar situations to this one, especially when in the car with my mom and a song like “Side to Side” comes on and finally the dirty lyrics hit me. Then the rest of the song is occupied by me debating changing the station and bringing more attention to it or waiting it out and hoping my mom isn’t actually listening to the lyrics. So, not surprisingly,  it took a full car of Catholics and some self-reflection for me to realize that Take Me To Church was written specifically against the church and its anti-gay ideals.  

Hozier wrote the song after longstanding frustration with the Catholic Church’s homophobic preaching’s and failure to accept same sex couples, even when the rest of the world seemed to be becoming more tolerant.  He expresses his message by comparing love and the church and by pointing out the differences between them.  In the context of the speaker being gay, the song alludes to the idea that his partner has been loving and accepting whereas the church has not. Since the Catholic church has a very strong belief that same sex couples are sinful and that a real relationship in God’s eyes is between a man and a woman, he will never be accepted by the church as a gay individual.  One strongest messages in this song is in the chorus:

“Take me to church

I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies

I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife

Offer me that deathless death

Good God, let me give you my life”

Here, Hozier is expressing his overall frustration with the church in that many individuals go to church, worship God’s teachings even if they believe some of them are lies, and confess their sins so they can be forgiven, but as long as that individual is gay the church will never accept him and will believe that he is living his life in sin.  This contrasts with the idea that the speaker’s lover is accepting of who he is no matter the insignificant details of his life.

The speaker states that

“Ever Sunday’s getting more bleak

A fresh poison each week”

which shows his growing frustration over time with the church and the “poison” that they preach every week during sermons and readings. Following the progression through the song as a timeline the speaker beings to stand up for his “illness” that the church believes he has when he says

“I was born sick But I love it Command me to be well”.

This shows that the speaker is stating that although the church believes he is “sick” and demands that he be cured of his illness to be accepted, he loves who he is and is happy with his sexuality.  He believes that the church is on “a fine-looking high horse” which ultimately shows that he believes the church thinks that they are above homosexuals and that if they got off their pedestal they would understand that they are real people too and that they should be treated just like any human being.  The phrase “There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle skin” shows that Hozier believes that homosexuality is something that is slightly different about some people but is not as big of a deal as the church sees it to be.  Someone being gay is an innocent part of their life that should not be seen as a sin and that the church should learn to accept it.  

The bridge of the song:

“In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene

Only then I am human

Only then I am clean”

exposes the brutality of the church to only see a homosexual as a real person after they have died and been buried because then they are not living in sin anymore.

Take Me To Church made it to Number 2 on the top charts when it first hit the radio, but most people probably didn’t grasp Hozier’s message at first.  Although the message is strong and important, if he had made the message more clear and surface level, then people could have been quick to reject it if they do not agree with his support.  However, his ability to mask the real message and leave it up to the interpretation of the listener allowed the song to gain popularity.  Although some people believe that popular artists shouldn’t present their political and social opinions in their music, when they express them in metaphor like Hozier did it allows for more people to relate and create their own opinions and beliefs about the song without being smothered by the artist’s agenda.

The music video:

While drafting ideas for the music video for Take Me To Church, Hozier decided that he did not want it to be strictly against the church, but rather express more about his personal beliefs on equal rights for people of all sexual orientations.  The anti-gay movement is not exclusive to the Catholic church, but also is present in certain political groups and individuals themselves.  By incorporating religious, political, and social rejection of homosexuality, Hozier is able to further reach his campaigning and show the more widespread effects and presence of homophobia.

The storyline of the video is that of two men who are deeply in love but cannot expose their relationship out of fear of being harmed by members of the anti-gay movement.  In the scene at 1:30 a TV screen is shown with what could be a protest in Russia to fight for gay rights after Putin enacted laws to criminalize homosexuality.  The violence of the hooded men is rather ironic because they are burning down homes and jumping men just because they do not agree with their actions and way of life, but their violent actions are condemned by many as well.  This can be related to the irony of the church’s disapproval that the lyrics present in that the church is supposed to be a loving and accepting place for people to seek solace but instead many are faced with repudiation and struggle when it comes to being a member of the church.

I didn’t immediately watch the video when it came out, but it quickly gained popularity on YouTube and is currently up to 140,000,000 views.  It got a lot of attention for the message that it presented and received both backlash and praise.  If you read the comments on YouTube there is a mix of people thanking Hozier for speaking up and bringing the problems with homophobia to the attention of the public, and a fair amount of people ridiculing him for his opinions and activism.  

LeBron James Beats commercial:

The big take away of Take Me To Church’s lyrics and music video is that everyone should accept themselves for who they are and embrace their qualities. Love is a great way to claim your individuality and find people who appreciate you for who you are rather than who they want you to be.  In 2014 Beats released a TV advertisement featuring LeBron James who had just announced that he would be leaving Miami and going to play for his home team of the Cleveland Cavaliers. He faced a lot of backlash from fans around the country, but the people in his hometown welcomed him back.  This instance is a prime example of how in certain situations we have both people that support our choices and people, like the church, who will not accept us for who we are and what we want to do.  

By choosing Take Me To Church to feature in this advertisement, Beats was able to promote their product in a serious manner and appeal to people’s emotions.  As you can see from the ad, walking through his old high school and looking at his Akron tattoo makes LeBron feel comfortable and at peace with his decision.  The intertwining of Hozier’s message to embrace who you are and find love that will help you reclaim your humanity and LeBron’s actual steps to pursue that makes the ad that much more effective.  By incorporating LeBron’s story and the somber and meaningful lyrics of the song, the advertisers were able to make the world feel as though they can use their product when following their heart along the path it wants.  

On a more surface level interpretation of the product itself, the wireless aspect of the earphones can be related to the severing of ties to something that might tie you down.   This can be related to the song because the message can also be seen as telling us to sever ties that hold us back from being who we really are, and being free to live the lives we want.

Hozier as an activist: 

Hopefully the discussion and interpretation of the lyrics and music video of Take Me To Church has brought light to the admirable activism that Hozier takes part in.  I find the balance that he maintains between amazing music and self-purpose incredible because there are many artists that put too much of themselves in the music, and others that seem distant from it.  Take Me To Church is not Hozier’s only song that deals with issues that he wants to bring to the attention of the public.  His song Cherry Wine deals with relationship abuse and how problematic it can be for both the abuser and the abusee when neither of them do anything to stop it and no one steps in.  Although these are just a few of Hozier’s songs that currently have an activist vibe, I’m sure he will later find more causes that he wants to support and incorporate that into his future albums.

References: 

The New York Times

Harvey Fierstein

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html