Liza Windsor is currently celebrating her diamond jubilee which is, unsurprisingly, based upon austerity and class oppression for the rest of us. Liza is the time-serving mediocrity better known by her pompous title: Queen Elizabeth the Second of too many places to really take seriously. She is still the Defender of the Faith in some!!! Unfortunately, one of those places includes my country, Canada. So the Queen of Canada lives in London, Great Britain. And she has ruled Canada for 60 years as our constitutional monarch and head of state.
All I can say is--it's the 21st century. Why the fuck do we still put up with this anachronistic shit?!!! Why do we tolerate an unelected and hereditary monarch as our head of state? And why, for fuck's sake, do we not only tolerate it but perform ecstatic analingus on Her Majesty in tribute to the beauty and glory of this ancien regime? Are we serfs?
Last year, we celebrated Bill and Kate's contract for the use of each other's genitals (that's Immanuel Kant's definition, not mine, but I ask--what else is this marriage thang all about but fucking with formal state approval?), as if it was leading up to the orgasm of the millenia. And now the diamond jubilee. So once again we all become pro-imperialist monarchists joyfully applauding monocle-and-crinoline fascism and white supremacy under the disavowing guise of tea, crumpets and Little Englandism.
And it isn't just harmless fun and bloodless nostalgia. And I'm not just engaging in radical party-poopery. This isn't a cute little anachronism like outdated weights and measures or steak-and-kidney pie. No, the Queen is an evil relic of the revolution/interrupted stasis that is Great Britain and its Commonwealth spawn.
Because of the Queen and her foul brood, the UK retains an outrageously unequal class system. The monarchy is crucial to the existence of that inequality. A system where large landowners are routinely delegated state authority such as the responsibility to manage wild pigs and badgers. Indeed, where the aristocracy appears to be back in charge of the countryside in total--and the public fucking subsidizes these entitled assholes!
Meanwhile, in the city some extraparliamentary outfit called 'The City' rules a tiny geographical but huge regulatory expanse like some medieval guild. Actually, it is partially composed of medieval guilds. And it is be based on massive financial inequality, in addition to being secretive and anti-democratic. It may even be largely responsible for the financial meltdown because of its 'liberalised' regulatory policies.
This is the hideous patchwork and reactionary constitutional system Her Royal Highness represents and maintains. What else does a monarchy do but keep back revolution (minor land reform and redistribution) and protect and preserve unearned privilege?
But that's indirect you say. Not her fault. Well, what about the 'effective veto' Chuckie has over some legislation? Makes you wonder what kinda veto Liza has...? I'm sure I could come up with more examples of royal perfidy. Like how much she actually costs Commonwealth taxpayers. Like how how many unearned perqs she and her ilk enjoy. Like the time she tried to get a subsidy meant for the poor to heat her many mansions!!! But I'm going to end up with an esoteric structural and constitutional issue that constitutional monarchy leads to...one that effectively ended up in a coup d'etat in Canada back in 2008...and one that doesn't require the Queen to be personally responsible. No, it isn't her. It's the system she helps keep going!!!
Now let's go back to that benighted time. The Great American Bank Meltdown had already happened and the Great American Recession was well underway. But in Canada, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, all was fine and any problems could be resolved by ending pay equity, the public sector's right to strike and public subsidy for federal political parties. But hey, seriously guys, everything is aok.
Well, the opposition parties disagreed and since it was a minority government their disagreement was a big deal. But Harper had played this game of brinkmanship manfully many a time already: 'You have no choice but to support even my worst legislation because otherwise you're responsible for an election. So I dare you. I freaking double dog dare you! Have a vote of non-confidence. See how the public likes that!!!'
Then the opposition did something unheard of. They threatened to form a coalition government!!! Oh the horrors! Harper had been outmanouevred. He hadn't expected that. So he cried foul. He cried French separatism. He cried all the way to Queenie's representative in Ottawa. Michaelle Jean. And he said that he needed to progrogue parliament and call the very election he had held over the heads of the opposition for almost a year.
For those unfamiliar with proroguing. When parliament has completed all its scheduled events ahead of schedule. It prorogues--or ends the session early. It is a technicality that is commonly used because parliament really doesn't do enough to occupy the third of the year it is in session.
What was unusual about Harper's use of proroguing was the simple fact that it was unnecessary. Unethical. Unconstitutional. Undemocratic. (Their was a Liberal-NDP coalition government with a majority of seats and a majority of the popular vote waiting to assume leadership once Harper and his Cons had lost a vote of non-confidence.) He asked Her Majesty's representative if she would kindly save his ass from being handed to him gilded on a platter by the opposition. So rather than face the fact that he was a fucking jackass, he decided to circumvent the technical rules of parliamentary procedure and shut down the normal process of government--that is, when a minority government does something so stupid that it must step aside for another government who can maintain the confidence of the House. And Michaelle Jean did as she was asked. And shut down parliament and held an unnecessary, unethical, unconstitutional and undemocratic election. All to save Harper's worthless government.
So what does that have to do with the Queen. Well, she is the head of state of our constitutional monarchy. And one of her duties is calling elections. Usually, that means nothing beyond yadda-yadda ceremonial banter. But every once in a while, it involves a constitutional crisis. And when that happens--do you really want an unelected and hereditary placeholder or the placeholder's placeholding representative to be making such a significant decision?
And it is her fault. She could abdicate. She could do the decent thing in a democratic age and fucking abdicate.
So Liza, as you reflect on your diamond jubilee please decide that it is time for you to become the normal person you are in title as well as flesh and join the rest of us by renouncing your positions and privileges and suggesting to the British PM that he do the same in perpetuity. Now that is the kinda constitutional crisis I can sink my fangs into!!!
And if she doesn't do that unlikely deed then let the rest of us end our serfdom--and get rid of her!!! Republic now!!!
Down with the queen and her fascist regime, my dark comrades!!!
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
Blackout in Canada
Technicalities! Technicalities! Everyone hates technicalities. The supposed joy of pedants and bureaucrats and bane of all right-thinking freedom-loving folk everywhere. Red tape strangles commerce and justice alike. We all know that!!!
Except...technicalities exist for a reason. Oh how I hate writing that! But technicalities are about more than dotting i's and crossing t's and filling out form after form after form...Yes, technicalities protect justice and freedom and democracy.
What keeps the police in check? Technicalities. What enforces our rights? Technicalities. What ensures the people have a voice in government? Technicalities.
But technicalities make the perfect arch-demon. Because those who would abuse the system know we all loathe it. They can introduce injustice and tyranny bit-by-bit simply by streamlining and reforming away all those pesky technicalities that give formless power its democratic form.
And the Stephen Harper government is the dungeon master of dismising technicalities while introducing counter-revolution. They've done it before. They came as close as possible to committing a coup d'etat without actually eliminating democracy when they ignored the technicalities around proroguing parliament and ended a session and called an election all to avoid a vote of non-confidence on their brutal, dishonest and disastrous budget in November of 2008. And, let's not forget, to also avoid a Liberal-NDP coalition government.
Right now, they're about to do it again. But this time with a majority government. The Harper government is introducing massive reforms of Canada's environmental laws in its spring budget. In a budget! Oh the technicalities!!! So many will not care. So many will not do a thing to save our precious techicalities.
So for good measure. Here is the reason why you should care. Rather than debating huge changes to Canada's environmental laws and various regulations, the Harper government will simply sneak a whole new regime through the budget backdoor. Because we all hate technicalities like parliamentary debate, full and open reviews, public participation and, well, democracy. It's all so messy and inefficient and gets in the way of letting multinational corporations make a profit while they destroy the planet and the economy.
If you want more information and/or want to do something, please visit: http://www.blackoutspeakout.ca/. Help stop Harper's creepy creeping tyranny...
Except...technicalities exist for a reason. Oh how I hate writing that! But technicalities are about more than dotting i's and crossing t's and filling out form after form after form...Yes, technicalities protect justice and freedom and democracy.
What keeps the police in check? Technicalities. What enforces our rights? Technicalities. What ensures the people have a voice in government? Technicalities.
But technicalities make the perfect arch-demon. Because those who would abuse the system know we all loathe it. They can introduce injustice and tyranny bit-by-bit simply by streamlining and reforming away all those pesky technicalities that give formless power its democratic form.
And the Stephen Harper government is the dungeon master of dismising technicalities while introducing counter-revolution. They've done it before. They came as close as possible to committing a coup d'etat without actually eliminating democracy when they ignored the technicalities around proroguing parliament and ended a session and called an election all to avoid a vote of non-confidence on their brutal, dishonest and disastrous budget in November of 2008. And, let's not forget, to also avoid a Liberal-NDP coalition government.
Right now, they're about to do it again. But this time with a majority government. The Harper government is introducing massive reforms of Canada's environmental laws in its spring budget. In a budget! Oh the technicalities!!! So many will not care. So many will not do a thing to save our precious techicalities.
So for good measure. Here is the reason why you should care. Rather than debating huge changes to Canada's environmental laws and various regulations, the Harper government will simply sneak a whole new regime through the budget backdoor. Because we all hate technicalities like parliamentary debate, full and open reviews, public participation and, well, democracy. It's all so messy and inefficient and gets in the way of letting multinational corporations make a profit while they destroy the planet and the economy.
If you want more information and/or want to do something, please visit: http://www.blackoutspeakout.ca/. Help stop Harper's creepy creeping tyranny...
Cthulhu Barbie: expanding women's rights...?
It's always fun to Goth the talk and walk the Goth...so when horror and politics meet, we need to spread the dark glamour of spooky subversion...
Yes! You can make your own Cthulhu Barbie. Introverted Wife has step-by-step destructions to show you how to cow, terrify and drive the rest of your dark doll collection insane. Move over Monster High, Barbie's inner beast goddess is coming to claim the chaos back as her own
...and maybe take back the night, too...? Is there, perhaps, a deeper message than just the black abyss in cult-crazed Cthulhu Barbie? Is it more than a maddening joke/gimmick?
That's exactly what Introverted Wife says:
"I would offer up some commentary on how this isn't born from the old hat idea of "ooh isn't it funny making Barbie ugly" but more a plea to all those costume makers who think women's only worth is looking hot at all times.
A woman can never be scary, or terrifying, or even truly ugly even if that is the homage she wishes to make. She must at all times be in a state of giving men boners.
So...Cthulhu Barbie. If she disturbs you, I've done my job. Also, I love any excuse to play with latex."
As women's bodies and women's minds get ever more constricted and constrained by the head-to-toe veil of corporate Kultur in its ever-expanding war on the female gender, spreading alternative images is more than just culture jamming. Everywhere, women must be skinny but full-breasted sexy but clean and fresh-smelling flirty but any carnal intent must be disavowed and covered up under powder and push-up bras and perfume. No stain, no scent, no bulge of the real body can be allowed. Only the illusion of the ideal of womanhood.
And what does Cthulhu Barbie have to say to this sterilized and sanitized version of womanhood? What does representing images of women as scary and ugly have to do with gender equality? Well, the ties that bind women to the beauty myth need to be cut. Ugly, scary representations of the feminine are part of the rupture.
Representing scary images of women can help make women scary. Powerful. In a way that isn't sexualized like the femme fatale. In a way that doesn't titillate and tease the male gaze. But rather terrifies it. Like the Furies. Like Medusa and the Gorgons. Like all the female spirits of vengeance and death and destruction that kept the male gaze in check, if only in a small way. We can bring them back. We can recreate them.
So go out and deconstruct Barbie and spread a little black magic, my pretties
 |
| Source: Introverted Wife |
 |
| Source: Introverted Wife |
That's exactly what Introverted Wife says:
 |
| Source: Introverted Wife |
A woman can never be scary, or terrifying, or even truly ugly even if that is the homage she wishes to make. She must at all times be in a state of giving men boners.
So...Cthulhu Barbie. If she disturbs you, I've done my job. Also, I love any excuse to play with latex."
As women's bodies and women's minds get ever more constricted and constrained by the head-to-toe veil of corporate Kultur in its ever-expanding war on the female gender, spreading alternative images is more than just culture jamming. Everywhere, women must be skinny but full-breasted sexy but clean and fresh-smelling flirty but any carnal intent must be disavowed and covered up under powder and push-up bras and perfume. No stain, no scent, no bulge of the real body can be allowed. Only the illusion of the ideal of womanhood.
And what does Cthulhu Barbie have to say to this sterilized and sanitized version of womanhood? What does representing images of women as scary and ugly have to do with gender equality? Well, the ties that bind women to the beauty myth need to be cut. Ugly, scary representations of the feminine are part of the rupture.
Representing scary images of women can help make women scary. Powerful. In a way that isn't sexualized like the femme fatale. In a way that doesn't titillate and tease the male gaze. But rather terrifies it. Like the Furies. Like Medusa and the Gorgons. Like all the female spirits of vengeance and death and destruction that kept the male gaze in check, if only in a small way. We can bring them back. We can recreate them.
So go out and deconstruct Barbie and spread a little black magic, my pretties
Friday, May 11, 2012
The perversity of desire
Penny Red has an excellent post on a misogynistic and counter-revolutionary Newsweek article which essentially argued that successful modern women were actually secretly tired of their independence and really wanted to submit to male sexual domination. The author Katie Roiphe's proof. Women fantasize about submission!!!
Laurie Penny does a great job of pointing out the reactionary political implications in this article and connects it to the current right-wing assault on women's reproductive rights and--women's rights in general--especially in the US but also pretty much everywhere all the time. The only thing I want to discuss here is the problem of taking fantasies literally. And drawing any conclusions about what the fantasizer actually wants based on her fantasies...
We are not our fantasies...our fantasies indirectly reveal a lot about...
Our bodies. Our masters. Our enemies...
We do not control our bodies. They control us. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the perversity of desire.
We don't decide what we want. We are seized by desire. We want what we can't have. We want what's bad for us. We are liberated but we want subjugation. We are well-adjusted but we want pain. We are faithful but we want group sex. We are heterosexual but we want the same sex. What is going on here?
Desire is dangerous. Our bodies are not a sanctuary. Of the civil war inside generally and specifically against the biomechanical reduction of sex by 'sexologists', feminist Lynne Segal writes: 'There is no hint or whisper of the often troubling, irrational or 'perverse' nature of sexual desire and fantasy [in mainstream sexology], which may bear little relation to our conscious ideals and commitments as autonomous agents in the world [my italics]. At the very least we might expect some mention of the frequency with which sexual desire does not restrict itself to the most suitable person, in the most suitable place; and its not unfamiliar habit of forsaking us when we find that person (p. 104).' Segal says more about the same thing: 'What arouses desire, as almost any women's fiction can illustrate [Fifty Shades of Grey, anyone?] rarely obeys the dictates of conscious feminist pursuit, but as often includes inappropriately submissive, aggressive, hostile, or in other ways 'deviant' impulses [my italics] (p. 104).'
So welcome to the bizarre and absurd world of desire. Not only is desire strange and contrary and disturbing. Not only does it not work as we might want it to but it doesn't work in our best interest either. And that is key here.
What we desire and fantasize about may not only be against our interest but against our entire self-concept and value system. It may be self-destructive. It may subvert our identity. It may pervert our whole being and being-in-the-world. But how does it actually relate to us? What does it say about us?
As Segal states, fantasies are 'troubling' but the nature of the problem depends on what you think a fantasy reveals. Do fantasies tell us what we really really want?
The Piano Teacher is a book and movie about a middle-aged doctor of music who despite all her artistic and academic success still lives with her domineering and belittling mother, visits porn shops and peepshows to get off and fantasizes about complete and total submission. She is pursued by a young man with whom she cannot have 'normal' sex and reveals her ultimate kinky desires to him in a disturbing letter. The movie climaxes (yes, I know, please indulge me I really have no choice) with her deep dark fantasies of bondage and discipline being translated into sordid and degrading reality when her lover 'acts' them out. The movie is so perverse because it uses erotic titillation as the 'tease' that draws the viewer into the trap of painful and naked un-erotic assault, humiliation and unlawful confinement. It is an anti-epiphany, an anti-consummation.
Which is one of the likely outcomes when we try to realize our fantasies. It isn't just that reality cannot live up to fantasy. There is something about our internal dream-life that simply does not follow us into the real world. That something magical and mystical is precisely what fantasies are all about.
Moreover, those fantasies are internal. No matter how little conscious control we exercise over them, they are still inside us and us alone. No one else is physically involved, so the script stll works with all the safeguards of a Star Trek holodeck. We are secure no matter how dangerous and out of control the fantasy becomes. In short, fantasies don't 'hurt' us physically. Which considering the things we do and have done to us in fantasy is a pretty big deal. Pain and dehumanization, if not life-in-prison or death, are the obvious outcomes of trying to 'realize' at least some of our fantasies.
So fantasies can be extreme and 'troubling' precisely because they are 'fantasies'--internal monologues where we do whatever with whomever however. With no physical consequences.
That doesn't mean fantasies are harmless or have no real-world consequences. It just means that taking them literally doesn't make sense. We want things in our heads that we may not really want in the outside world. They are not deep secrets about ourselves. We may fantasize about things we would never want to come to pass. We may find some imaginary things exciting because they contrast with everything else we stand for and find compelling and meaningful. We may just be curious and like trying on new things. We may have an unresolved issue that we keep working on. We may lust for things we know we can't have. We may lust for things we hope we never do get.
There are any number of explanations for desires and fantasies that don't interpret them as a direct connection with the truth about ourselves. We don't have a self. We don't have an essence that is waiting to be liberated from its imaginary prison. We are not our fantasies.
So women who fantasize about being tied up, beaten, and ravaged are not expressing their conscious wish for inequality and male protection. There is no necessary political or social message there. They could be fantasizing about submission because it scares them so much. Fear is exciting. Even erotic. But does anyone think that our passion for horror movies and dystopian tales says that we want to get eaten by monsters or live in Panem?
Here's hoping your dreams never come true, my dark comrades!
Laurie Penny does a great job of pointing out the reactionary political implications in this article and connects it to the current right-wing assault on women's reproductive rights and--women's rights in general--especially in the US but also pretty much everywhere all the time. The only thing I want to discuss here is the problem of taking fantasies literally. And drawing any conclusions about what the fantasizer actually wants based on her fantasies...
We are not our fantasies...our fantasies indirectly reveal a lot about...
Our bodies. Our masters. Our enemies...
We do not control our bodies. They control us. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the perversity of desire.
We don't decide what we want. We are seized by desire. We want what we can't have. We want what's bad for us. We are liberated but we want subjugation. We are well-adjusted but we want pain. We are faithful but we want group sex. We are heterosexual but we want the same sex. What is going on here?
Desire is dangerous. Our bodies are not a sanctuary. Of the civil war inside generally and specifically against the biomechanical reduction of sex by 'sexologists', feminist Lynne Segal writes: 'There is no hint or whisper of the often troubling, irrational or 'perverse' nature of sexual desire and fantasy [in mainstream sexology], which may bear little relation to our conscious ideals and commitments as autonomous agents in the world [my italics]. At the very least we might expect some mention of the frequency with which sexual desire does not restrict itself to the most suitable person, in the most suitable place; and its not unfamiliar habit of forsaking us when we find that person (p. 104).' Segal says more about the same thing: 'What arouses desire, as almost any women's fiction can illustrate [Fifty Shades of Grey, anyone?] rarely obeys the dictates of conscious feminist pursuit, but as often includes inappropriately submissive, aggressive, hostile, or in other ways 'deviant' impulses [my italics] (p. 104).'
So welcome to the bizarre and absurd world of desire. Not only is desire strange and contrary and disturbing. Not only does it not work as we might want it to but it doesn't work in our best interest either. And that is key here.
What we desire and fantasize about may not only be against our interest but against our entire self-concept and value system. It may be self-destructive. It may subvert our identity. It may pervert our whole being and being-in-the-world. But how does it actually relate to us? What does it say about us?
As Segal states, fantasies are 'troubling' but the nature of the problem depends on what you think a fantasy reveals. Do fantasies tell us what we really really want?
The Piano Teacher is a book and movie about a middle-aged doctor of music who despite all her artistic and academic success still lives with her domineering and belittling mother, visits porn shops and peepshows to get off and fantasizes about complete and total submission. She is pursued by a young man with whom she cannot have 'normal' sex and reveals her ultimate kinky desires to him in a disturbing letter. The movie climaxes (yes, I know, please indulge me I really have no choice) with her deep dark fantasies of bondage and discipline being translated into sordid and degrading reality when her lover 'acts' them out. The movie is so perverse because it uses erotic titillation as the 'tease' that draws the viewer into the trap of painful and naked un-erotic assault, humiliation and unlawful confinement. It is an anti-epiphany, an anti-consummation.
Which is one of the likely outcomes when we try to realize our fantasies. It isn't just that reality cannot live up to fantasy. There is something about our internal dream-life that simply does not follow us into the real world. That something magical and mystical is precisely what fantasies are all about.
Moreover, those fantasies are internal. No matter how little conscious control we exercise over them, they are still inside us and us alone. No one else is physically involved, so the script stll works with all the safeguards of a Star Trek holodeck. We are secure no matter how dangerous and out of control the fantasy becomes. In short, fantasies don't 'hurt' us physically. Which considering the things we do and have done to us in fantasy is a pretty big deal. Pain and dehumanization, if not life-in-prison or death, are the obvious outcomes of trying to 'realize' at least some of our fantasies.
So fantasies can be extreme and 'troubling' precisely because they are 'fantasies'--internal monologues where we do whatever with whomever however. With no physical consequences.
That doesn't mean fantasies are harmless or have no real-world consequences. It just means that taking them literally doesn't make sense. We want things in our heads that we may not really want in the outside world. They are not deep secrets about ourselves. We may fantasize about things we would never want to come to pass. We may find some imaginary things exciting because they contrast with everything else we stand for and find compelling and meaningful. We may just be curious and like trying on new things. We may have an unresolved issue that we keep working on. We may lust for things we know we can't have. We may lust for things we hope we never do get.
There are any number of explanations for desires and fantasies that don't interpret them as a direct connection with the truth about ourselves. We don't have a self. We don't have an essence that is waiting to be liberated from its imaginary prison. We are not our fantasies.
So women who fantasize about being tied up, beaten, and ravaged are not expressing their conscious wish for inequality and male protection. There is no necessary political or social message there. They could be fantasizing about submission because it scares them so much. Fear is exciting. Even erotic. But does anyone think that our passion for horror movies and dystopian tales says that we want to get eaten by monsters or live in Panem?
Here's hoping your dreams never come true, my dark comrades!
Friday, May 4, 2012
Female androgyny
The lack of female androgyny in the Goth community is a conspicuous absence noted by students of Goth like Dunja Brill, among others. This underrepresentation is especially significant because of the central role of femininity and male androgyny in the subculture. Revealingly, male androgyny has been sexualized with transgressive capital while female androgyny has been ignored or neglected, at best. Treated like it is in the mainstream culture: male androgyny is sexy; female androgyny is just gross. Men win again.
This empty space and the absurd negative assumptions revolving around it needs to be explored. And populated with a genuinely transgressive image of the sexy androgynous female. Sexy on her terms, that is. Now that would really challenge gender stereotypes. And heteronormative views of sexual attractiveness.
Aside from being ignored and neglected, female androgyny is also often dismissed. Women's dress codes are presumably so liberal that there really is no boundary to cross. At first glance, this makes the idea of the 'drag king' nowhere near as gender bending as the 'drag queen'. At first glance, that is.
When female androgyny is not ignored, neglected or dismissed, it is ridiculed. Because it presents a far greater challenge to male dominance and male sexuality. Witness the character of 'Pat' on Saturday Night Live. Pat is of ambiguous gender and that is the meta-joke behind this character. Pat is not a perfect example of an androgynous woman because her (she basically, kinda, sorta, turns out to be a 'she') sex is never clearly identified. That is the whole joke. But her female gender is implicit, if not acknowledged in some scenes. In any case, Pat's androgyny is the butt of the joke. It is meant to be funny, especially Pat's constant frustration of other people's attempts to find out which sex Pat really is. While not hostile or really offensive, the ambivalent (at best) response to Pat's ambiguous female-like gender tells us a lot about the threat female androgyny poses.
While male androgyny is easily heterosexualized, female androgyny is far less digestible to mainstream culture. It is not glamorized because it is assumed to be 'ugly' (what is less attractive to 'straight' men than 'masculine' women in the eyes of the Kultur?); and is presented as abject, abnormal and unsettling. In a culture where women are commanded to be feminine and beautiful, any woman who deliberately chooses to be handsome and masculine is incomprehensible and disturbing. Hence, the underlying theme of Pat.
But this norm is being questioned. And British actress Tilda Swinton is one of the gender bending revolutionaries.
The sex appeal of Tilda Swinton crosses gender boundaries, if not dimensional ones. Her supernatural beauty troubles, boils and bubbles "sex" as we know it. And we luuuv it. Why? Is she sexy because she is a boiish grrl? Or a grrlish boi? Both? Neither/nor? All? Genderqueer in shades of gorgeous transcendence...?
My answer could be summed up in her performance as the titular transgender character in Orlando, a wondrous and wonderful adaptation of Virginia Woolf's novel of the same name (if you need a good read, then seriously this is it!). The story follows Orlando as he transforms over history from an androgynous boi in Elizabethan England into an androgynous grrl in Edwardian times. If you haven't seen it, watch it. The movie is amazing. And Swinton is stunning in all her sexually ambiguous glory.
Witness, the picture above. Tilda's sex/gender is completely irrelevant. And arbitrarily masculine only because we arbitrarily assign 'masculine' meanings to it.
Quite plainly, gender is as gender does. And Tilda Swinton gives new meaning to both 'masculine' and 'handsome'.
But female androgyny isn't just handsome. It is unearthly. Otherworldly. In short, radical resistance.
This empty space and the absurd negative assumptions revolving around it needs to be explored. And populated with a genuinely transgressive image of the sexy androgynous female. Sexy on her terms, that is. Now that would really challenge gender stereotypes. And heteronormative views of sexual attractiveness.
Aside from being ignored and neglected, female androgyny is also often dismissed. Women's dress codes are presumably so liberal that there really is no boundary to cross. At first glance, this makes the idea of the 'drag king' nowhere near as gender bending as the 'drag queen'. At first glance, that is.
When female androgyny is not ignored, neglected or dismissed, it is ridiculed. Because it presents a far greater challenge to male dominance and male sexuality. Witness the character of 'Pat' on Saturday Night Live. Pat is of ambiguous gender and that is the meta-joke behind this character. Pat is not a perfect example of an androgynous woman because her (she basically, kinda, sorta, turns out to be a 'she') sex is never clearly identified. That is the whole joke. But her female gender is implicit, if not acknowledged in some scenes. In any case, Pat's androgyny is the butt of the joke. It is meant to be funny, especially Pat's constant frustration of other people's attempts to find out which sex Pat really is. While not hostile or really offensive, the ambivalent (at best) response to Pat's ambiguous female-like gender tells us a lot about the threat female androgyny poses.
 |
| It's Pat! Source: wikipedia |
But this norm is being questioned. And British actress Tilda Swinton is one of the gender bending revolutionaries.
 |
| Source: Craig McDean |
 |
| Source: soundonmars |
 |
| Tilda Swinton as Orlando |
Witness, the picture above. Tilda's sex/gender is completely irrelevant. And arbitrarily masculine only because we arbitrarily assign 'masculine' meanings to it.
Quite plainly, gender is as gender does. And Tilda Swinton gives new meaning to both 'masculine' and 'handsome'.
But female androgyny isn't just handsome. It is unearthly. Otherworldly. In short, radical resistance.
 |
| Source: Time |
Friday, April 27, 2012
Gothing the rural lifestyle: Gothabilly
I'm a holistic person. I need a leitmotif to bring all the bits and pieces together. Without one, I get all angsty and fragmentary-y and such. But fending off the centrifugal forces is not as simple as selecting a theme and going with it. No, it has to feel right. It has to fit with the moment and the environment and every petty obsession and fixation. So what is the theme du jour?
Well, I'm a Goth who lives in rural northern Alberta. It's about as rural as it gets without living in a shack in the woods. My home is practically at the end of a gravel road surrounded by bush and farm fields. Not as romantic as it sounds. The nearest town is only 5 miles away but it only has a population of 4000 on a good day. This is the heart of hillbilly redneck Alberta. Or 'little Texas' as some of the local yokels call it. And we are the mirror image of the cowboy/oilpatch Lonestar State.
While Goth is primarily an urban lifestyle, there is a romantic trend that connects with the country and nature. Goth and the rural lifestyle are definitely compatible. What is more spooky than traipsing through freshly cut hayfields under a harvest Moon? Yes, the woods and creeks and pathways and abandoned buildings provide many a dark delight for the intrepid gothling.
And I enjoy them but I'm also no romantic. I tend to appreciate the ironic side of Goth far more than the glimmer of doom and gloom glamour. Besides, the country up here is not of the manor and the moor kind. Think Southern Gothic more than Wuthering Heights Gothic. And what ironic style of Goth is easily countrified in the 'Western' sense? Nothing less than Gothabilly with its playful reinterpretation of 50s/cowboy culture via monster movies, comic books and camp?
So Gothabilly is the theme that ties and binds. The Goth style I keep returning to. Gothabilly just works in the Wild West. The 50s/country punk undertones of Gothabilly bands like Ghoultown, the HorrorPops, the Creepshow, etc. provide the perfect soundscape for the landscape of cow pastures, paddocks, muskeg (bog), willowstand, etc. The dark take on cowboy hats and boots, jeans and work shirts, provides the perfect subtle and ironic compliment to the 'normal' gear of rural life. Chili cook-offs, bbqs, harvest and seeding feasts, are activities just demanding to be Gothed up. Gothabilly is country Goth.
I have some issues with Gothabilly, however. The fixed gender roles bother me. Gothabilly is supposedly for macho men and feminine women. The gender stratification in clothing, behavior and representation is certainly far higher than in most other Goth styles. And the apolitical focus on kustom kulture, kitschy monsters, burlesque, etc. is also a turn-off. Yes, unlike punk Goth is generally apolitical but most other styles of Goth at least challenge the norm. Gothabilly is too much like a fun version of the norm.
But the ironic style of Gothabilly is full of subversive potential. Cowboys represent a male chauvinist white supremacist archetype but when they're Gothabillified they become something else entirely.
This is not your traditional cowboy:
Nor are these gents:
Even if you can picture them at a rodeo dance...in a novel by Joe R. Lansdale.
You can also see a similar dark metamorphosis of the 'greaser' style of Gothabilly here:
Or in the shape of zombie greasers like this mini-horde:
Oh yes! It's spooky! It's fun! It's camp! It ain't your grandpa's rockabilly bobby-soxing!
But what about the ladies? Does Gothabilly offer nothing but conformity for the grrl?
Well, yes and no. Gender bending style is not Gothabilly. Strict gender stratification is the norm. But there is a certain whimsical cheekiness even here:
And here:
That's gotta count for something, right?
Of course, because that cheekiness is part of a Gothabilly mindset that allows grrls to be grrls--that is strong, independent women in control of their lives and their bodies. Gothabilly grrls aren't just ornaments, they're agents. Singer Devil Doll exemplifies this attitude and the autonomy behind it.
She is not just another sex object. No way!
The sexiness of the Gothabilly style is also open and inclusive. Against the mainstream female body type monoculture of skin and thin, Gothabilly sexiness is available for every shape and size; indeed, it even caters to the voluptuous woman.
In our misogynist culture, that adaptability is far more radical than it should be; and it goes beyond helping women recapture and re-occupy their bodies. It is about rebellion against a repressive and reactionary society. Singer Jamie Bahr of rockabilly band Danger*Cakes makes all the right connections:
"I think the recent interest of Pin-up and Rockabilly styles has come about because people are tired of the same old routine. The economy is lousy. We’re cynical and untrusting of our government and each other. We’re over-worked, under-paid and under-insured. And on top of all that, we’re constantly being bombarded about the obesity epidemic. Yes, the measurements and weight of an average woman today are larger than past generations, yet the average print ad model is smaller than ever. This reflection of our society just adds a second helping of discontent and self-loathing onto our already full plates. So what can you do to spruce up a day of discontent? Get dolled up and go dancing! Pin-up styles are best suited for women with full-figured physiques and ample curves. I know I feel good when I look my best and I’m sure that goes for other people as well. It may not change your situation, but it’ll definitely change your outlook, which could potentially lead to a change in situation. And isn’t that exactly what we’re all hoping for right now?"
Yes, obesity and austerity, body type tyranny and authoritarian social control, they all have the same source in our ultra-commodified lives. We are dominated by abstractions like 'healthy body size', 'debt', 'terrorism', 'intellectual property rights'--you name it! Against all this ether madness, Gothabilly brings it all down-to-earth in a re-worked mish-mash of working class greaser/punk and middle class Goth/beatnik. All forms of youthful rebellion against the status quo.
And the rebellion is real...Surprisingly, the subversive potential of Gothabilly really does still cause problems in the mundane world. I know. I've seen it happen up here in cattle country.
Let me take you back...no, not to the 1950s. Although it seems like we entered a time warp. No, back to the McCarthyist present of 2010 where a group of local Peace River psychobillies decided to put on Rust 'N' Lust, a combo kustom kulture/burlesque/bellydance/hellbilly show featuring the Phantom Creeps, Lascivious Burlesque, Halo Dance and the Scarlet Coquette.
The burlesque portion (while I am aware of the debate, I won't go into the issues of burlesque in this post) of the show caused controversy from the start among some Bible-thumping locals but that was minor until the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission decided to clamp down on burlesque by re-classifying performers as 'exotic dancers'. I have nothing against exotic dancers but the problem is that they are subject to all kinds of laws and regulations that govern what they can and cannot do on stage and with the audience. Burlesque performers need the freedom to play with their audience; and the new designation as 'exotic dancers' kills the fun and chills the performances across the province. So we have the return of creeping McCarthyist control of women's bodies in the 21st century. And Gothabilly is there front and centre against the state...well, that's a little exaggerated. Rust 'n' Lust has not come back in full force yet. We anxiously await its return.
In any case, you can see how the Gothabilly style is a natural fit with the rural life, especially up here in north central Alberta. And its rebellious tendencies and downright spunky irony only add to its appeal in 'little Texas'.
...and with that I ride off into the sunset, my fellow Gothabilly desperadoes...
Well, I'm a Goth who lives in rural northern Alberta. It's about as rural as it gets without living in a shack in the woods. My home is practically at the end of a gravel road surrounded by bush and farm fields. Not as romantic as it sounds. The nearest town is only 5 miles away but it only has a population of 4000 on a good day. This is the heart of hillbilly redneck Alberta. Or 'little Texas' as some of the local yokels call it. And we are the mirror image of the cowboy/oilpatch Lonestar State.
While Goth is primarily an urban lifestyle, there is a romantic trend that connects with the country and nature. Goth and the rural lifestyle are definitely compatible. What is more spooky than traipsing through freshly cut hayfields under a harvest Moon? Yes, the woods and creeks and pathways and abandoned buildings provide many a dark delight for the intrepid gothling.
And I enjoy them but I'm also no romantic. I tend to appreciate the ironic side of Goth far more than the glimmer of doom and gloom glamour. Besides, the country up here is not of the manor and the moor kind. Think Southern Gothic more than Wuthering Heights Gothic. And what ironic style of Goth is easily countrified in the 'Western' sense? Nothing less than Gothabilly with its playful reinterpretation of 50s/cowboy culture via monster movies, comic books and camp?
So Gothabilly is the theme that ties and binds. The Goth style I keep returning to. Gothabilly just works in the Wild West. The 50s/country punk undertones of Gothabilly bands like Ghoultown, the HorrorPops, the Creepshow, etc. provide the perfect soundscape for the landscape of cow pastures, paddocks, muskeg (bog), willowstand, etc. The dark take on cowboy hats and boots, jeans and work shirts, provides the perfect subtle and ironic compliment to the 'normal' gear of rural life. Chili cook-offs, bbqs, harvest and seeding feasts, are activities just demanding to be Gothed up. Gothabilly is country Goth.
I have some issues with Gothabilly, however. The fixed gender roles bother me. Gothabilly is supposedly for macho men and feminine women. The gender stratification in clothing, behavior and representation is certainly far higher than in most other Goth styles. And the apolitical focus on kustom kulture, kitschy monsters, burlesque, etc. is also a turn-off. Yes, unlike punk Goth is generally apolitical but most other styles of Goth at least challenge the norm. Gothabilly is too much like a fun version of the norm.
But the ironic style of Gothabilly is full of subversive potential. Cowboys represent a male chauvinist white supremacist archetype but when they're Gothabillified they become something else entirely.
This is not your traditional cowboy:
 |
| Source: Shrine Clothing |
 |
| Source: Ghoultown |
You can also see a similar dark metamorphosis of the 'greaser' style of Gothabilly here:
 |
| Source: Lip Service |
 | ||||
| Zombie Ghost Train Source: Auxiliary Magazine |
But what about the ladies? Does Gothabilly offer nothing but conformity for the grrl?
Well, yes and no. Gender bending style is not Gothabilly. Strict gender stratification is the norm. But there is a certain whimsical cheekiness even here:
 |
| Source: Jennifer Linton |
 |
| Source: weheartit |
That's gotta count for something, right?
Of course, because that cheekiness is part of a Gothabilly mindset that allows grrls to be grrls--that is strong, independent women in control of their lives and their bodies. Gothabilly grrls aren't just ornaments, they're agents. Singer Devil Doll exemplifies this attitude and the autonomy behind it.
 |
| Source: myspace |
The sexiness of the Gothabilly style is also open and inclusive. Against the mainstream female body type monoculture of skin and thin, Gothabilly sexiness is available for every shape and size; indeed, it even caters to the voluptuous woman.
 |
| Source: offbeatbride |
 |
| Source: Sourpuss Clothing |
 |
| Source: His Ruin Photography |
Yes, obesity and austerity, body type tyranny and authoritarian social control, they all have the same source in our ultra-commodified lives. We are dominated by abstractions like 'healthy body size', 'debt', 'terrorism', 'intellectual property rights'--you name it! Against all this ether madness, Gothabilly brings it all down-to-earth in a re-worked mish-mash of working class greaser/punk and middle class Goth/beatnik. All forms of youthful rebellion against the status quo.
And the rebellion is real...Surprisingly, the subversive potential of Gothabilly really does still cause problems in the mundane world. I know. I've seen it happen up here in cattle country.
Let me take you back...no, not to the 1950s. Although it seems like we entered a time warp. No, back to the McCarthyist present of 2010 where a group of local Peace River psychobillies decided to put on Rust 'N' Lust, a combo kustom kulture/burlesque/bellydance/hellbilly show featuring the Phantom Creeps, Lascivious Burlesque, Halo Dance and the Scarlet Coquette.
 |
| Source: Rust 'n' Lust |
In any case, you can see how the Gothabilly style is a natural fit with the rural life, especially up here in north central Alberta. And its rebellious tendencies and downright spunky irony only add to its appeal in 'little Texas'.
...and with that I ride off into the sunset, my fellow Gothabilly desperadoes...
Friday, April 13, 2012
The music of sex
So many descriptions of sex just don't quite hit the spot. Kinda like sex acts themselves. Many of us know how sex sounds and feels--but how do you re-present the experience of sex?
Like death, sex is largely ineffable. It is more than human; and so in many ways beyond our comprehension. So attempts to make sex speak often just sound plain silly...
(Or in the case of J. G. Ballard's Crash, deliberately disturbing in their repugnant and minute detail. Sex=smegma. That's all you need to know.)
But sometimes art equals the epiphany of really good sex. 'Love Triangle' by Australian experimental noise trip hop band HTRK is a totally immersive soundscape that penetrates, enfolds, envelops and obliterates precisely because of its minimalism.
Listen to the song. Read the words:
he on she on me
me on she on he
he on she on me
me on she on he
bermuda bermuda bermuda
tropical storms wash over me
So much in so little. Listening to this song is actually having the sex.
The first four lines are a full body massage of sounds and words that prep you for the literal climax:
bermuda bermuda bermuda
tropical storms wash over me
Exactly...this is 'erotic destruction'. What Catherine Waldby defines as 'the temporary, ecstatic confusions wrought upon the everyday sense of self by sexual pleasure...Destruction seems an appropriate term for these states because it captures both the tender violence and the terrors involved in sexual practice..., the kinds of violence this does to any sense of self as autonomous. Erotic pleasure arguably requires a kind of momentary annihilation or suspension of what normally counts as 'identity', the conscious, masterful, self-identical self,...lost in the 'little death' of orgasm (p. 266).'
And back...
bermuda bermuda bermuda
tropical storms wash over me
Like death, sex is largely ineffable. It is more than human; and so in many ways beyond our comprehension. So attempts to make sex speak often just sound plain silly...
(Or in the case of J. G. Ballard's Crash, deliberately disturbing in their repugnant and minute detail. Sex=smegma. That's all you need to know.)
But sometimes art equals the epiphany of really good sex. 'Love Triangle' by Australian experimental noise trip hop band HTRK is a totally immersive soundscape that penetrates, enfolds, envelops and obliterates precisely because of its minimalism.
Listen to the song. Read the words:
he on she on me
me on she on he
he on she on me
me on she on he
bermuda bermuda bermuda
tropical storms wash over me
So much in so little. Listening to this song is actually having the sex.
The first four lines are a full body massage of sounds and words that prep you for the literal climax:
bermuda bermuda bermuda
tropical storms wash over me
Exactly...this is 'erotic destruction'. What Catherine Waldby defines as 'the temporary, ecstatic confusions wrought upon the everyday sense of self by sexual pleasure...Destruction seems an appropriate term for these states because it captures both the tender violence and the terrors involved in sexual practice..., the kinds of violence this does to any sense of self as autonomous. Erotic pleasure arguably requires a kind of momentary annihilation or suspension of what normally counts as 'identity', the conscious, masterful, self-identical self,...lost in the 'little death' of orgasm (p. 266).'
And back...
bermuda bermuda bermuda
tropical storms wash over me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)