Gina Harris's Blog, page 103
April 6, 2018
Concert Review: Have Mercy
Have Mercy struck me as a really laid back band.
(Some of that may have been contrast, because the band after them had an unusually expressive bassist.)
Other than making me feel that maybe it's okay if I tend to close my eyes when I sing, there were two things that seemed important about this laid back impression.
It in no way detracted from the feeling that they were very happy to be there and performing for us.It might be kind of a relief, too, because some of their songs are really sad, like the kind of music that you might listen to after a bad breakup or a death or something that hurts. That they still seemed happy and relaxed is kind of hopeful. The hurt doesn't have to leave you broken.2017's Make The Best Of It is a really strong album. They have earlier tracks that stand out; I especially liked "Howl", "Two Years", and "Let's Talk About Your Hair" for that, and I love that they did a cover of "Somebody's Baby". Still, listening to "Drive"and "Coexist", this band has matured. Listening to "Good Christian Man" may give an idea of some of what that maturation entailed.
Overall, this is a good band and probably a good time to be listening to them. The tour with Senses Fail just wrapped up, but they have a bunch of dates coming up in June.
http://www.wearehavemercy.com/
https://www.facebook.com/HaveMercyMD/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCToUNe4i9j_SlKGFl8MrQHg
https://twitter.com/HaveMercyMD
(Some of that may have been contrast, because the band after them had an unusually expressive bassist.)
Other than making me feel that maybe it's okay if I tend to close my eyes when I sing, there were two things that seemed important about this laid back impression.
It in no way detracted from the feeling that they were very happy to be there and performing for us.It might be kind of a relief, too, because some of their songs are really sad, like the kind of music that you might listen to after a bad breakup or a death or something that hurts. That they still seemed happy and relaxed is kind of hopeful. The hurt doesn't have to leave you broken.2017's Make The Best Of It is a really strong album. They have earlier tracks that stand out; I especially liked "Howl", "Two Years", and "Let's Talk About Your Hair" for that, and I love that they did a cover of "Somebody's Baby". Still, listening to "Drive"and "Coexist", this band has matured. Listening to "Good Christian Man" may give an idea of some of what that maturation entailed.
Overall, this is a good band and probably a good time to be listening to them. The tour with Senses Fail just wrapped up, but they have a bunch of dates coming up in June.
http://www.wearehavemercy.com/
https://www.facebook.com/HaveMercyMD/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCToUNe4i9j_SlKGFl8MrQHg
https://twitter.com/HaveMercyMD
April 5, 2018
Concert Review: Household
I went to a show with four bands last week (March 27th at the Hawthorne Theater), so these next four reviews will all cover that show, based on the order in which the bands performed.
The opening band was Household, and I missed a good part of their set. My train was held because the train in front of us was being held for the police, leading to a missed bus and a late arrival. (At least I wasn't on the train that was being held for the police.) Anyway, I missed a lot, but I did get to see them perform some, and I have been listening to them all week.
Because more of my experience is from their recorded material, that may be why a lot of my thoughts seem to be based on their video for "Don't Listen To Me".
There is a comment on the video saying that while the song is nice, the transitions and key changes make it sound like four different songs together. I don't agree with that because I think the overall mood of the song works together. I do get why someone might think that, and I can also see how the video could reinforce it. Using some old communication technology, some interpretive dance, and some reverse film, there is a sense of disjointedness and separation, but that works with the theme. It is a somber theme, but one that touches on common human experience.
The band does have a somber sound overall. There are times when they rock pretty hard, like on "Wistern", but the overall mood is fairly downbeat. The best description I can give is that if you combined The Starting Line and Pearl Jam, but also they read a lot of Sartre, I think that band would sound a lot like Household.
http://www.householdband.com/
https://www.facebook.com/Householdmusic/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4sPlX6igstaXBAAgiwddVg
https://twitter.com/householdmpls
The opening band was Household, and I missed a good part of their set. My train was held because the train in front of us was being held for the police, leading to a missed bus and a late arrival. (At least I wasn't on the train that was being held for the police.) Anyway, I missed a lot, but I did get to see them perform some, and I have been listening to them all week.
Because more of my experience is from their recorded material, that may be why a lot of my thoughts seem to be based on their video for "Don't Listen To Me".
There is a comment on the video saying that while the song is nice, the transitions and key changes make it sound like four different songs together. I don't agree with that because I think the overall mood of the song works together. I do get why someone might think that, and I can also see how the video could reinforce it. Using some old communication technology, some interpretive dance, and some reverse film, there is a sense of disjointedness and separation, but that works with the theme. It is a somber theme, but one that touches on common human experience.
The band does have a somber sound overall. There are times when they rock pretty hard, like on "Wistern", but the overall mood is fairly downbeat. The best description I can give is that if you combined The Starting Line and Pearl Jam, but also they read a lot of Sartre, I think that band would sound a lot like Household.
http://www.householdband.com/
https://www.facebook.com/Householdmusic/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4sPlX6igstaXBAAgiwddVg
https://twitter.com/householdmpls
April 4, 2018
This is not women helping women
As much as men need to learn to think about women differently, women have work to do too. Undervaluing ourselves and overvaluing men has a cost.
One of the more obvious costs is that we will frequently accept bad treatment when we don't have too. Sometimes there is no escape route, or we try to get out in ways that don't work. Sometimes we successfully say "no" and get punished for it in other way. But sometimes we say "yes" because we think we have to. Frankly, the first two instances do a lot to support the idea that we should not be fighting for ourselves. It's very demoralizing.
Also, sometimes we pick on each other. Yesterday's post referred to an association between women enjoying sex and being sluts. Too much enjoyment can even seem doubtful when it is a woman whose only partner has been her husband, just because those ideas can take such deep root. Furthermore, sometimes the worst judgment comes from women.
There are lots of sociological reasons why this makes sense. Frequently women don't get to exert much power over men, but they can wield power against women via social acceptance and rejection and gossipy criticism.
(A good side path could be examining the correlation between having a lower status and being more abusive of those further down, but we're not going there now.)
This is really just a prelude to criticizing two more celebrities, not for them assaulting or harassing anyone sexually, but for being stupid about it.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/drew-barrymore-blasted-tone-deaf-comments-metoo-urging-women-not-angry-161220971.html
I admit that the first thing that stuck out to me was Drew Barrymore's urgent plea to the women coming forward to reject anger. It stuck out to me because I had recently learned the value of my own anger. It stuck out because even though there has been plenty of talk about how opposite of helpful tone policing is, she literally referred to the "tone of anger" (and has rightly been called tone-deaf).
There's that, but on the second pass I noticed this repetition about women "not expecting to have things handed to them" and working hard and proving themselves.
What is anyone trying to have handed to them other than being heard?
Many of the women who have come forward have proven ability in acting, some also with directing and producing, and they have worked plenty hard to get there. Thanks for invalidating all of that, but seriously, what do you think they are asking for? Is it that you have to work very hard to be allowed to say when someone with power over you abuses you?
Have you fully thought about the ramifications of that? Because it seems like then we're going to have to stop caring about child abuse and inmate abuse, but I guess we can still listen to hotel and farm workers who get abused because they work really hard. Only we're not listening to them, but basically listening to people who have a name we recognize or maybe they have an abuser whose name we recognize. I concede that's not a perfect system, but I swear Barrymore is not thinking about what she is saying, and that's unfortunate because she has a recognizable name.
I know anger can be dangerous, but it can also be empowering. Denying victims a form of empowerment because it makes you uncomfortable (and then crapping on them even more by implying that your hard work was the magic power that protected you) is not a good look. Honestly, it makes you sound a little fragile, like you are afraid that if you think too much about the bad stuff it will all fall apart. I can have sympathy with that, but take it to a therapist, not to a television interview.
She's still better than Susan Sarandon.
I couldn't find the quote that I remember, talking about career choices that protected her, because we all have the ability to pick and choose roles when you are trying to make it in a really competitive industry. That's okay; I found a worse quote.
"Now, I’m sure there’s a lot of men who were much smoother at seducing than-” she bursts out laughing – “James Toback and Harvey Weinstein, who a lot of women felt very flattered to be sleeping with, even if they didn’t get the job. There’s just a culture, starting in the 60s and 70s, where there was a certain amount of liberation that made it possible for those things to happen without even seeing yourself as a victim.”
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/susan-sarandon-harvey-weinstein-hillary-clinton-comments
Or possibly it feels different when a man is pursuing you for a relationship and you like him than when a man is forcing himself on you, scaring you, sabotaging you, and putting his hands around your neck.
Let me say one more thing about Sarandon; I tried to find an article that only focused on her reactions to #metoo and not on her political beliefs and support for Sanders. I could not successfully do so. Partly she may just be proud of all the ways in which she is contrary to those other actors, so it kept coming up. However, that reference to the liberation, and how that let things happen, is interesting in a couple of ways.
Actresses got raped in the 40s and 50s too, for sure, along with getting drugged more. Also, the one article also referred to Peggy Noonan (whose level of affection for the Clintons is similar to Sarandon's) drawing a similar connection to sexual liberation and #metoo.
(To read a pretty twisted quote from Noonan without having to be a Wall Street Journal subscriber, go here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/peggy_noonan_suggests_the_sexual_revolution_is_to_blame_for_harassment_here.html)
That still ignores the history of rape, assault, harassment, and misogyny, and then conveniently finds a way to blame victims and find oneself superior. I mean, it's interesting that someone so conservative and someone so liberal have the same take on a matter of abuse. There could be some interesting things to think about with the far left there, though I think that is still something I don't want to get into yet. Beyond that, a lot of people just really like being able to look down on someone else.
Maybe that will end up connecting to a post that gets written Monday, but I do want to get closer to wrapping this up, and then talking about books and movies.
One of the more obvious costs is that we will frequently accept bad treatment when we don't have too. Sometimes there is no escape route, or we try to get out in ways that don't work. Sometimes we successfully say "no" and get punished for it in other way. But sometimes we say "yes" because we think we have to. Frankly, the first two instances do a lot to support the idea that we should not be fighting for ourselves. It's very demoralizing.
Also, sometimes we pick on each other. Yesterday's post referred to an association between women enjoying sex and being sluts. Too much enjoyment can even seem doubtful when it is a woman whose only partner has been her husband, just because those ideas can take such deep root. Furthermore, sometimes the worst judgment comes from women.
There are lots of sociological reasons why this makes sense. Frequently women don't get to exert much power over men, but they can wield power against women via social acceptance and rejection and gossipy criticism.
(A good side path could be examining the correlation between having a lower status and being more abusive of those further down, but we're not going there now.)
This is really just a prelude to criticizing two more celebrities, not for them assaulting or harassing anyone sexually, but for being stupid about it.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/drew-barrymore-blasted-tone-deaf-comments-metoo-urging-women-not-angry-161220971.html
I admit that the first thing that stuck out to me was Drew Barrymore's urgent plea to the women coming forward to reject anger. It stuck out to me because I had recently learned the value of my own anger. It stuck out because even though there has been plenty of talk about how opposite of helpful tone policing is, she literally referred to the "tone of anger" (and has rightly been called tone-deaf).
There's that, but on the second pass I noticed this repetition about women "not expecting to have things handed to them" and working hard and proving themselves.
What is anyone trying to have handed to them other than being heard?
Many of the women who have come forward have proven ability in acting, some also with directing and producing, and they have worked plenty hard to get there. Thanks for invalidating all of that, but seriously, what do you think they are asking for? Is it that you have to work very hard to be allowed to say when someone with power over you abuses you?
Have you fully thought about the ramifications of that? Because it seems like then we're going to have to stop caring about child abuse and inmate abuse, but I guess we can still listen to hotel and farm workers who get abused because they work really hard. Only we're not listening to them, but basically listening to people who have a name we recognize or maybe they have an abuser whose name we recognize. I concede that's not a perfect system, but I swear Barrymore is not thinking about what she is saying, and that's unfortunate because she has a recognizable name.
I know anger can be dangerous, but it can also be empowering. Denying victims a form of empowerment because it makes you uncomfortable (and then crapping on them even more by implying that your hard work was the magic power that protected you) is not a good look. Honestly, it makes you sound a little fragile, like you are afraid that if you think too much about the bad stuff it will all fall apart. I can have sympathy with that, but take it to a therapist, not to a television interview.
She's still better than Susan Sarandon.
I couldn't find the quote that I remember, talking about career choices that protected her, because we all have the ability to pick and choose roles when you are trying to make it in a really competitive industry. That's okay; I found a worse quote.
"Now, I’m sure there’s a lot of men who were much smoother at seducing than-” she bursts out laughing – “James Toback and Harvey Weinstein, who a lot of women felt very flattered to be sleeping with, even if they didn’t get the job. There’s just a culture, starting in the 60s and 70s, where there was a certain amount of liberation that made it possible for those things to happen without even seeing yourself as a victim.”
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/susan-sarandon-harvey-weinstein-hillary-clinton-comments
Or possibly it feels different when a man is pursuing you for a relationship and you like him than when a man is forcing himself on you, scaring you, sabotaging you, and putting his hands around your neck.
Let me say one more thing about Sarandon; I tried to find an article that only focused on her reactions to #metoo and not on her political beliefs and support for Sanders. I could not successfully do so. Partly she may just be proud of all the ways in which she is contrary to those other actors, so it kept coming up. However, that reference to the liberation, and how that let things happen, is interesting in a couple of ways.
Actresses got raped in the 40s and 50s too, for sure, along with getting drugged more. Also, the one article also referred to Peggy Noonan (whose level of affection for the Clintons is similar to Sarandon's) drawing a similar connection to sexual liberation and #metoo.
(To read a pretty twisted quote from Noonan without having to be a Wall Street Journal subscriber, go here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/peggy_noonan_suggests_the_sexual_revolution_is_to_blame_for_harassment_here.html)
That still ignores the history of rape, assault, harassment, and misogyny, and then conveniently finds a way to blame victims and find oneself superior. I mean, it's interesting that someone so conservative and someone so liberal have the same take on a matter of abuse. There could be some interesting things to think about with the far left there, though I think that is still something I don't want to get into yet. Beyond that, a lot of people just really like being able to look down on someone else.
Maybe that will end up connecting to a post that gets written Monday, but I do want to get closer to wrapping this up, and then talking about books and movies.
April 3, 2018
Bad dates (and mates)
This is going to be about sex.
No, I am not an expert. I do pay attention to people, and I think there are some points I can make.
This is starting with an account of a date with Aziz Ansari. If you are not familiar, the account is here:
https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355
Many people were indignant on Ansari's behalf, and that totally wasn't rape because she could have said "no" at any time. No one was suggesting that he be charged with rape, of course, but that doesn't make it a good date, or a good experience for the woman.
Yesterday I wrote about how when women are deciding how to respond to unwanted advances, they don't know how the man will react. Fear is an element of that, but it is not the only thing that comes up. We have been socialized for a long time to please others, to not create problems, and to not expect a lot from men. Sometimes wanting something romantic to happen can be a factor, because even though he is being disrespectful maybe he doesn't mean it, and really cares about you even though he isn't showing it at the moment. Making excuses for men doesn't end up being good for men or women, but there's a tradition there.
Now I want to leave Ansari behind and move on to something else that I had been reading about around the same time, and to which many women were responding in agreement: sex is often painful for women, and not in a "hurts so good" kind of way.
There were two things that worked together to be of particular concern, in that women often don't feel comfortable mentioning it, and also that the pain could be a sign of a serious health problem, and thus should not be ignored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/db52efc3-c84c-4870-a4d0-f4ff183ec356
https://www.yourtango.com/experts/donnabegg/why-painful-sex-ignoring-sex-hurts
There is also a long tradition of inadequately exploring women's health issues, and a long tradition that only slutty women are supposed to enjoy sex. These are not helpful for anyone. "Thinking of England" may get you through the pain, but it won't heal a prolapsed uterus and is seems like it would make sex much less of a bonding experience.
Now I'm going to zag one more time, to an old episode of Everybody Loves Raymond: "No Roll!"
Ray buys an erotic board game, Sensuopoly. He is surprised when Debra agrees to play, but then he keeps just trying to jump her. As they argue over this, Ray thinks the issue is that he isn't romantic, but it's really that he isn't that good at sex.
My family several sex-centric episodes saved. They are funny, but also I think they handle the content really well. They make important points, getting around prime time constraints with humor and hints, and still being pretty clear.
Debra's specific issues were needing more variety and needing Ray to be less selfish. This is really logical. A man's shortest path to completion tends not to be the most effective path for a woman. So, if sometimes she is not too enthusiastic, it may be that she won't get much out of it.
And sometimes you are feeling pressured, and even though you tell him and he seems to agree to back off, he pressures you more, leaving you feeling gross and used.
And sometimes it hurts, maybe like being stabbed in the uterus.
Sometimes the point of faking an orgasm is to get it over with already.
Here is where we get to applying it personally: do you know if your significant other is getting as much satisfaction as you? Could they be putting aside pain and feelings of degradation for your sake. Possibly most important of all, if making things better for them means more work or less sex for you, are you willing to change?
We are in a transition here. More people are willing to accept that sex should be good for women too (though there are still a lot of people who think that makes women sluts). Some women on their own are able to be more assertive, and also able to decide that they don't need a selfish and disrespectful man. Some men are frustrated with that, and don't seem to recognize the frustration on the other side that leads to it.
There are still a lot of women who do not feel free to speak up. They were trained to be nice, and not talk about these things (and be highly criticized for even trying to talk about them) or be selfish (where it feels like any self regard is selfish). They may say "yes" to things out of guilt, and they feel the criticism when men complain about how heartless and shallow women are.
Many of us fall somewhere in between.
There is room to examine personal attitudes there, but that would be incomplete without looking at the history and the traditions and how these behaviors have developed. Legally women are no longer property, but the attitudes haven't completely gone away.
To fix that, many people will have to change their thinking, seeing women as fully functioning humans with agency over their bodies, having both the right of refusal and the right of consent.
Part of that is going to be listening to women, and letting what they say matter.
When women try to open up about their worst experiences and they are shouted down, we are not honoring that.
Yeah, eventually I'm going to talk about Matt Damon.
No, I am not an expert. I do pay attention to people, and I think there are some points I can make.
This is starting with an account of a date with Aziz Ansari. If you are not familiar, the account is here:
https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355
Many people were indignant on Ansari's behalf, and that totally wasn't rape because she could have said "no" at any time. No one was suggesting that he be charged with rape, of course, but that doesn't make it a good date, or a good experience for the woman.
Yesterday I wrote about how when women are deciding how to respond to unwanted advances, they don't know how the man will react. Fear is an element of that, but it is not the only thing that comes up. We have been socialized for a long time to please others, to not create problems, and to not expect a lot from men. Sometimes wanting something romantic to happen can be a factor, because even though he is being disrespectful maybe he doesn't mean it, and really cares about you even though he isn't showing it at the moment. Making excuses for men doesn't end up being good for men or women, but there's a tradition there.
Now I want to leave Ansari behind and move on to something else that I had been reading about around the same time, and to which many women were responding in agreement: sex is often painful for women, and not in a "hurts so good" kind of way.
There were two things that worked together to be of particular concern, in that women often don't feel comfortable mentioning it, and also that the pain could be a sign of a serious health problem, and thus should not be ignored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/db52efc3-c84c-4870-a4d0-f4ff183ec356
https://www.yourtango.com/experts/donnabegg/why-painful-sex-ignoring-sex-hurts
There is also a long tradition of inadequately exploring women's health issues, and a long tradition that only slutty women are supposed to enjoy sex. These are not helpful for anyone. "Thinking of England" may get you through the pain, but it won't heal a prolapsed uterus and is seems like it would make sex much less of a bonding experience.
Now I'm going to zag one more time, to an old episode of Everybody Loves Raymond: "No Roll!"
Ray buys an erotic board game, Sensuopoly. He is surprised when Debra agrees to play, but then he keeps just trying to jump her. As they argue over this, Ray thinks the issue is that he isn't romantic, but it's really that he isn't that good at sex.
My family several sex-centric episodes saved. They are funny, but also I think they handle the content really well. They make important points, getting around prime time constraints with humor and hints, and still being pretty clear.
Debra's specific issues were needing more variety and needing Ray to be less selfish. This is really logical. A man's shortest path to completion tends not to be the most effective path for a woman. So, if sometimes she is not too enthusiastic, it may be that she won't get much out of it.
And sometimes you are feeling pressured, and even though you tell him and he seems to agree to back off, he pressures you more, leaving you feeling gross and used.
And sometimes it hurts, maybe like being stabbed in the uterus.
Sometimes the point of faking an orgasm is to get it over with already.
Here is where we get to applying it personally: do you know if your significant other is getting as much satisfaction as you? Could they be putting aside pain and feelings of degradation for your sake. Possibly most important of all, if making things better for them means more work or less sex for you, are you willing to change?
We are in a transition here. More people are willing to accept that sex should be good for women too (though there are still a lot of people who think that makes women sluts). Some women on their own are able to be more assertive, and also able to decide that they don't need a selfish and disrespectful man. Some men are frustrated with that, and don't seem to recognize the frustration on the other side that leads to it.
There are still a lot of women who do not feel free to speak up. They were trained to be nice, and not talk about these things (and be highly criticized for even trying to talk about them) or be selfish (where it feels like any self regard is selfish). They may say "yes" to things out of guilt, and they feel the criticism when men complain about how heartless and shallow women are.
Many of us fall somewhere in between.
There is room to examine personal attitudes there, but that would be incomplete without looking at the history and the traditions and how these behaviors have developed. Legally women are no longer property, but the attitudes haven't completely gone away.
To fix that, many people will have to change their thinking, seeing women as fully functioning humans with agency over their bodies, having both the right of refusal and the right of consent.
Part of that is going to be listening to women, and letting what they say matter.
When women try to open up about their worst experiences and they are shouted down, we are not honoring that.
Yeah, eventually I'm going to talk about Matt Damon.
April 2, 2018
The Monday Morning Quarterback
I am still working on sexual assault and harassment, I am going to take a tangent related to mass shootings for a moment, because it relates.
The far right has been harassing shooting victims and their families for a while, with claims of hoaxes and false flags, and they have certainly been criticizing protesters and activists for a long time, with everything being insincere and funded by George Soros. That's nothing new, but in the wake of youth from the Parkland shooting protesting gun violence, there is starting to be some push back. Laura Ingraham has had to take a vacation after losing sponsors, and Dana Loesch is trying to sound more nurturing. Sure, a lot of people are still throwing around the term "snowflakes" and making the usual arguments about how gun laws could never work, and they are certainly paying more attention to the white kids than the students of color, but it does feel like some kind of progress.
Obviously, there could be a lot to talk about there, but I am not going there right now. The point I want to bring up is the other direction things have been going, with students (because there are many students protesting, not just the Parkland survivors) being encouraged to reach out instead of walking out. The idea is that if they will just be nicer to each other, then there won't be any shootings.
I am not promoting bullying, but I object to the promotion of the myth that bullying is the root cause of school shootings. Of course students should not bully each other; but - especially lately - the way to stop school shootings would have to be for girls never to break up with one boy and date another boy, or to date anyone when there is a boy who likes them, or something like that. It's like the attention that was focused on the wife of the Pulse shooter or the girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter; women are supposed to know what their men are up to and control them, but a lot of these shootings are about controlling women. I can't find any indication that the women the Santa Barbara shooter felt rejected by had any idea that he was interested in them, but the answers given later are still that women should give these poor guys a chance.
We can draw some pretty convincing lines between how workplace sexual harassment and rape and assault and mass shootings all go together, but again, that's not what I'm trying to get at today.
The point I am trying to make may not even be that valuable, because often the people who criticize what various survivors have done are giving courses of action that were in fact taken, with no indication that they are interested in understanding the facts or empathizing with the people. Nonetheless, there's still one thing I keep remembering.
It was in a women's magazine (probably Woman's Day, but I am not sure) that I read when I was a young teenager. The article was about surviving, I guess, but what I really remember was an anecdote about a woman in an elevator. She was alone, and at one floor a man got in and started to grope her. She slapped him and he beat her, leaving her with a broken arm.
Slapping him had seemed like the right response, probably because of those cartoons and things: "I'm not that kind of girl!" Except if you think about it, in movies those slaps just show that she is feisty; getting out of the situation requires a rescue from a man. So maybe she should have known it wouldn't work, but it's a lot of pressure under the circumstances, and how do you know? Even when it isn't a stranger, how do you know? Because if he was the person you thought he was, he wouldn't be doing this, right?
Maybe sometimes you can leave safely, but then it turns out to not be safe. Maybe sometimes a joke works, but other times he might decide that being funny is consent, or he might know that it's not consent but that's kind of a turn on for him.
I support self-defense training, but if it's your boss licking your ear, or the guy who comes back and shoots after you wouldn't give your phone number, that doesn't help. Even having thought of different scenarios and how to react in them, those have not been the situations that came up for me.
So I want to make two points from this. The first is just shut up about what people should have done. And if it happened to you, and you keep trying to figure out what you should have done differently, try and let it go. You can't change the past, and the other things might not have worked either.
The second point is - knowing how many horrible things can happen, and all the mental calculations that are going on to try and guarantee safety that so often end up being futile - that when these things are being discussed the key point is never #notallmen. If your concern is more about being lumped in with the bad guys, rather than the existence and support and freedom of the bad guys, you are not that good a guy. You are not helping. You are, in fact, hurting, even though there are worse things you could do.
http://www.shakesville.com/2018/03/today-in-toxic-masculinity.html
The far right has been harassing shooting victims and their families for a while, with claims of hoaxes and false flags, and they have certainly been criticizing protesters and activists for a long time, with everything being insincere and funded by George Soros. That's nothing new, but in the wake of youth from the Parkland shooting protesting gun violence, there is starting to be some push back. Laura Ingraham has had to take a vacation after losing sponsors, and Dana Loesch is trying to sound more nurturing. Sure, a lot of people are still throwing around the term "snowflakes" and making the usual arguments about how gun laws could never work, and they are certainly paying more attention to the white kids than the students of color, but it does feel like some kind of progress.
Obviously, there could be a lot to talk about there, but I am not going there right now. The point I want to bring up is the other direction things have been going, with students (because there are many students protesting, not just the Parkland survivors) being encouraged to reach out instead of walking out. The idea is that if they will just be nicer to each other, then there won't be any shootings.
I am not promoting bullying, but I object to the promotion of the myth that bullying is the root cause of school shootings. Of course students should not bully each other; but - especially lately - the way to stop school shootings would have to be for girls never to break up with one boy and date another boy, or to date anyone when there is a boy who likes them, or something like that. It's like the attention that was focused on the wife of the Pulse shooter or the girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter; women are supposed to know what their men are up to and control them, but a lot of these shootings are about controlling women. I can't find any indication that the women the Santa Barbara shooter felt rejected by had any idea that he was interested in them, but the answers given later are still that women should give these poor guys a chance.
We can draw some pretty convincing lines between how workplace sexual harassment and rape and assault and mass shootings all go together, but again, that's not what I'm trying to get at today.
The point I am trying to make may not even be that valuable, because often the people who criticize what various survivors have done are giving courses of action that were in fact taken, with no indication that they are interested in understanding the facts or empathizing with the people. Nonetheless, there's still one thing I keep remembering.
It was in a women's magazine (probably Woman's Day, but I am not sure) that I read when I was a young teenager. The article was about surviving, I guess, but what I really remember was an anecdote about a woman in an elevator. She was alone, and at one floor a man got in and started to grope her. She slapped him and he beat her, leaving her with a broken arm.
Slapping him had seemed like the right response, probably because of those cartoons and things: "I'm not that kind of girl!" Except if you think about it, in movies those slaps just show that she is feisty; getting out of the situation requires a rescue from a man. So maybe she should have known it wouldn't work, but it's a lot of pressure under the circumstances, and how do you know? Even when it isn't a stranger, how do you know? Because if he was the person you thought he was, he wouldn't be doing this, right?
Maybe sometimes you can leave safely, but then it turns out to not be safe. Maybe sometimes a joke works, but other times he might decide that being funny is consent, or he might know that it's not consent but that's kind of a turn on for him.
I support self-defense training, but if it's your boss licking your ear, or the guy who comes back and shoots after you wouldn't give your phone number, that doesn't help. Even having thought of different scenarios and how to react in them, those have not been the situations that came up for me.
So I want to make two points from this. The first is just shut up about what people should have done. And if it happened to you, and you keep trying to figure out what you should have done differently, try and let it go. You can't change the past, and the other things might not have worked either.
The second point is - knowing how many horrible things can happen, and all the mental calculations that are going on to try and guarantee safety that so often end up being futile - that when these things are being discussed the key point is never #notallmen. If your concern is more about being lumped in with the bad guys, rather than the existence and support and freedom of the bad guys, you are not that good a guy. You are not helping. You are, in fact, hurting, even though there are worse things you could do.
http://www.shakesville.com/2018/03/today-in-toxic-masculinity.html
March 30, 2018
Band Review: Emilie Autumn
Going in order, I should have reviewed Zelena Hull last Thursday and Stever yesterday, but it looked like there might be some similarity of content between Karen Stever and Emilie Autumn, who had been recommended in the same Shakesville thread that led me to Ana Tijoux. I switched the order around to make sure that I could keep each artist separate and give them their due attention.
I wouldn't even mention that, except that it stands out because while there are some similar Gothic elements and transformational themes and diversity of media between Stever and Autumn, I couldn't enjoy it with Stever but I love it with Autumn because she is electrifying.
Emilie Autumn does a lot of different things. She plays classical violin, as can be heard on Laced/Unlaced. She is a poet, and reads her poetry on Your Sugar Sits Untouched. Her stage performances incorporate cabaret and burlesque. She has also written a novel, The Asylum for Wayward Victorian Girls, for which the title alone may give you an idea of her overall aesthetic.
I am mainly reviewing her as a musician, though. Musically, from the beginning of "Fight Like A Girl" I was electrified, with a strong continuation in "One Foot in Front of the Other".
There are other songs where you can glean ideas of what her stage act might be like. On "Girls! Girls! Girls!" (nothing like Mötley Crüe's song of the same name) Autumn at times takes on the role of a carnival barker, though a remarkably mellifluous one. Many songs display a caustic wit, especially on "Prick! Goes the Scorpion's Tale". Songs like "What If" and "Gaslight" are delicately beautiful.
But what I will keep coming back to is the energy of "Fight Like a Girl" and the resigned pathos of "One Foot in Front of the Other. Together they convey the glory and the toll of fighting misogyny. Those themes are present in other songs, but those two encapsulate a lot, and make a good starting point.
The angst is real, and occasionally feral, which I am sure could turn off some (taking any stand against misogyny at all is a turn off for some), but there is so much good, so much beauty, and so much power overall, that I hope many people will be encouraged to check out Emilie Autumn.
https://www.emilieautumn.com/
https://www.facebook.com/emilieautumnofficial/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3wbtmpPwifYvxWmlNwHk8g
https://twitter.com/emilieautumn
I wouldn't even mention that, except that it stands out because while there are some similar Gothic elements and transformational themes and diversity of media between Stever and Autumn, I couldn't enjoy it with Stever but I love it with Autumn because she is electrifying.
Emilie Autumn does a lot of different things. She plays classical violin, as can be heard on Laced/Unlaced. She is a poet, and reads her poetry on Your Sugar Sits Untouched. Her stage performances incorporate cabaret and burlesque. She has also written a novel, The Asylum for Wayward Victorian Girls, for which the title alone may give you an idea of her overall aesthetic.
I am mainly reviewing her as a musician, though. Musically, from the beginning of "Fight Like A Girl" I was electrified, with a strong continuation in "One Foot in Front of the Other".
There are other songs where you can glean ideas of what her stage act might be like. On "Girls! Girls! Girls!" (nothing like Mötley Crüe's song of the same name) Autumn at times takes on the role of a carnival barker, though a remarkably mellifluous one. Many songs display a caustic wit, especially on "Prick! Goes the Scorpion's Tale". Songs like "What If" and "Gaslight" are delicately beautiful.
But what I will keep coming back to is the energy of "Fight Like a Girl" and the resigned pathos of "One Foot in Front of the Other. Together they convey the glory and the toll of fighting misogyny. Those themes are present in other songs, but those two encapsulate a lot, and make a good starting point.
The angst is real, and occasionally feral, which I am sure could turn off some (taking any stand against misogyny at all is a turn off for some), but there is so much good, so much beauty, and so much power overall, that I hope many people will be encouraged to check out Emilie Autumn.
https://www.emilieautumn.com/
https://www.facebook.com/emilieautumnofficial/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3wbtmpPwifYvxWmlNwHk8g
https://twitter.com/emilieautumn
March 29, 2018
Band Review: Zelena Hull
Zelena Hull is a singer working out of South Carolina who has won various awards as a vocalist.
Musically she reminds me a little of Alannah Myles and Sheryl Crow, with a country/Southern rock emphasis. The only caveat I need to give there is that she is young, and it is more noticeable here than it might be in other genres.
Hull's Facebook page refers to her as a teen. She was winning prizes in 2013, so she may have cracked her twenties by now, but she still sounds kind of young.
That is somewhat a result of her musical style. Some of the music sounds like it should be sung with a whiskey-soaked voice, and yet you question whether this voice has reached drinking age.
That is not to endorse drinking, or especially underage drinking, but it feels fair to say that Hull is still developing into the artist that she is going to become, even with at least five years of experience under her belt.
If the previous descriptions of her style (Alannah Myles and Sheryl Crow) appeals to you, then getting in on the ground floor and watching her develop could be rewarding.
http://www.zelenahull.com/
https://www.facebook.com/ZelenaHull/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyRzNKrrkj7qAWJJfSe5oVQ
https://twitter.com/zelenahull
Musically she reminds me a little of Alannah Myles and Sheryl Crow, with a country/Southern rock emphasis. The only caveat I need to give there is that she is young, and it is more noticeable here than it might be in other genres.
Hull's Facebook page refers to her as a teen. She was winning prizes in 2013, so she may have cracked her twenties by now, but she still sounds kind of young.
That is somewhat a result of her musical style. Some of the music sounds like it should be sung with a whiskey-soaked voice, and yet you question whether this voice has reached drinking age.
That is not to endorse drinking, or especially underage drinking, but it feels fair to say that Hull is still developing into the artist that she is going to become, even with at least five years of experience under her belt.
If the previous descriptions of her style (Alannah Myles and Sheryl Crow) appeals to you, then getting in on the ground floor and watching her develop could be rewarding.
http://www.zelenahull.com/
https://www.facebook.com/ZelenaHull/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyRzNKrrkj7qAWJJfSe5oVQ
https://twitter.com/zelenahull
March 28, 2018
Letting them speak
Very little felt right in writing about Lori Mattix yesterday. Even calling her a groupie - because it should be an adult decision to become a groupie - felt wrong. The more basic conflict is that she feels better about her life experience than I do about it. If it is disrespectful to tell an adult they are viewing their past wrong, I still can't bring myself to not call it wrong.
I also know that I had a highly inflated opinion of my own maturity and decision-making abilities at fourteen. Retroactively I am still pretty sure that I was more mature than many fourteen-year old girls (and boys), but there is still a lot to be said for actually going through the years with the experience that entails, along with the completion of brain development.
The other thing I know is that young women are socialized to put a high value on male attention. That not only leads to a lot of angst and humiliation, but it frequently facilitates the acceptance of horrible behavior. (He only kidnapped you because he likes you.)
Because of all of that, when I wrote about needing to create a world that is supportive of and values women, and that listens to them, it's not just so that we can help women heal, and nip things in the bud before healing is required, but also that we can shift how we understand what is positive attention and what is negative. That's not just about building a better present and future, but also helping people to face old wounds and heal from them. The good works together.
Listening is important for changing situations, but it may also be one of the surest signs that we value someone.
Judge Rosemarie Aquilina received a lot of attention for her sentencing of Larry Nassar. You can argue that she was overly theatrical with the letter. You can definitely take exception to any indications that being raped in prison is an appropriate punishment. I can certainly see why this would feel right in this case, but if we look at who ends up in prison and why, and the things that happen to them because of that, we should simply not get in the habit of finding any rape or any mistreatment of prisoners funny. Also, that leads into another area, of whether we should call this ruling transformative justice, to which the answer is no. Someone did use the term in relation to the case, but that conveys a lack of understanding of the topic.
With all of that said, I wholeheartedly applaud Judge Aquilina allowing all of the girls who wished to read their impact statements. Yes, that took a lot of time, and it included people who were not formally named in the case, but it was valuable for them. Her recognition of them, and encouragement of them, that I think she really got right.
Of course there were complaints about that too. There would be, but this is exactly what is needed.
That is the most flummoxing thing -- for all of the "concerns" about people seeking money and fame, what most of the victims seem to want most is to be heard, and people are reluctant to even give them that.
I can think of things that might be good. It might be great for Salma Hayek to get to release a special cut of Frida, one that met her vision without the need of an added sex scene because Weinstein told her that without her hotness she was nothing. It could be great for studios to fund projects for some of the women whose careers have been trashed. Maybe. If those are things that they want. But they should get to say what they want first, and get to say what they need.
And that should be happening in a lot of industries besides Hollywood.
I also know that I had a highly inflated opinion of my own maturity and decision-making abilities at fourteen. Retroactively I am still pretty sure that I was more mature than many fourteen-year old girls (and boys), but there is still a lot to be said for actually going through the years with the experience that entails, along with the completion of brain development.
The other thing I know is that young women are socialized to put a high value on male attention. That not only leads to a lot of angst and humiliation, but it frequently facilitates the acceptance of horrible behavior. (He only kidnapped you because he likes you.)
Because of all of that, when I wrote about needing to create a world that is supportive of and values women, and that listens to them, it's not just so that we can help women heal, and nip things in the bud before healing is required, but also that we can shift how we understand what is positive attention and what is negative. That's not just about building a better present and future, but also helping people to face old wounds and heal from them. The good works together.
Listening is important for changing situations, but it may also be one of the surest signs that we value someone.
Judge Rosemarie Aquilina received a lot of attention for her sentencing of Larry Nassar. You can argue that she was overly theatrical with the letter. You can definitely take exception to any indications that being raped in prison is an appropriate punishment. I can certainly see why this would feel right in this case, but if we look at who ends up in prison and why, and the things that happen to them because of that, we should simply not get in the habit of finding any rape or any mistreatment of prisoners funny. Also, that leads into another area, of whether we should call this ruling transformative justice, to which the answer is no. Someone did use the term in relation to the case, but that conveys a lack of understanding of the topic.
With all of that said, I wholeheartedly applaud Judge Aquilina allowing all of the girls who wished to read their impact statements. Yes, that took a lot of time, and it included people who were not formally named in the case, but it was valuable for them. Her recognition of them, and encouragement of them, that I think she really got right.
Of course there were complaints about that too. There would be, but this is exactly what is needed.
That is the most flummoxing thing -- for all of the "concerns" about people seeking money and fame, what most of the victims seem to want most is to be heard, and people are reluctant to even give them that.
I can think of things that might be good. It might be great for Salma Hayek to get to release a special cut of Frida, one that met her vision without the need of an added sex scene because Weinstein told her that without her hotness she was nothing. It could be great for studios to fund projects for some of the women whose careers have been trashed. Maybe. If those are things that they want. But they should get to say what they want first, and get to say what they need.
And that should be happening in a lot of industries besides Hollywood.
March 27, 2018
And I like them
I can have some sympathy for Sharon Osbourne not wanting to believe the worst about James Franco. Before that, I had already had to kind of deal with that twice.
I wrote about one of the times pretty recently: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2018/02/nahm-2017-taking-sides.html
Before that, it was when David Bowie died. There was a lot of mourning and a lot of gratitude to him for making it okay to be a freak, but there was also this:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-bowie-and-rock-n-rolls-statutory-rape-problem
I read a few articles on that. It could have been more painful, because a lot of the musicians that came up weren't ones I cared for. Then Dee Dee Ramone came up, and that wasn't so much disappointment or disbelief as this anger, that just for once in your life could you do the right thing?
I want to see if I can unsnarl some of this knotted tangle.
First of all, Prince - who inspired a very similar grief for many - also comes up in that article. Whomever you love and like and admire, often you know about them because they are famous in some way, and that gives them opportunities, and a lot of them committed statutory rape. I'm pretty sure they didn't think of it that way, but they did.
I'm not completely against acknowledging that it could have been viewed differently then, but there's a danger in doing that. First of all, it was illegal then too, which they surely could have known.
I was reading a thread recently with people sharing things others had done for them. For one person, it was that when she was young (though legal) and vulnerable, a man old enough to be her father did not sleep with her. She was there at his house, and they could have, but he not only stopped himself but told her that this would not be good for her. It would have had emotional ramifications for her that it wouldn't have had for him, but he put her first and she still remembers that with gratitude.
For my own part, I had not ever been really into Bowie. The freak thing kind of put me off, and I liked some of his music but I didn't really grow to appreciate it until a few years ago. However, I did like him. Later when I read a biography and I saw things about him giving songs to groups that were falling apart, or pulling artists in a slump into the studio with him, I assumed that was what I was responding to there. So I find it easy to think of him as a kind and considerate person, who still did something wrong and damaging. I can picture that against a context of male pleasure being prioritized over female safety, and anything that sounded vaguely moral rejected as too uptight, regardless of its value.
But remember, I came up with my rule already: we need to think of the victims first.
Okay, Lori Mattix seems to be okay with it, though there could be some denial there. There are also a lot of girls that I don't know the names of. How do we fix that? We can't go back in time, but we can be understanding of people who are coming forward now. We can listen now. We can provide support now.
That should go beyond a listening ear (though that is a great starting place) but also working for wage equality and mental health parity. If women have the resources they need to heal and to leave destructive situations, that is a start.
We should be providing early and appropriate sex education. That should include mental health information like how girls who sleep with older men - famous or not - tend to suffer later. That will require being able to talk about sex without getting all weird about it. We can do that.
When the flood of #metoo stories was starting, there would often be questions asked about if various offenders could be forgiven, because we were still focusing on the perpetrators instead of the victims. It could be a very reasonable question to ask - before we ask about forgiveness - to ask if they are sorry, because there have been some pretty lousy apologies put forth.
The better question to ask is what we would like to see different. That can be a difference in the perpetrators, but I think will also need to be a difference in us.
We can probably see a difference between David Bowie sleeping with one groupie and Jimmy Page arranging her kidnapping and Roy Moore going so persistently after teen girls that he was banned from a mall. We need to be able to do that without justifying the "lesser" actions. We can probably let go of anger if we can focus on making sure that everyone is okay now - supported, heard, and helped.
And I'm pretty sure that's going to take overturning the kyriarchy, but I promise it will be better for everyone when we do.
I wrote about one of the times pretty recently: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2018/02/nahm-2017-taking-sides.html
Before that, it was when David Bowie died. There was a lot of mourning and a lot of gratitude to him for making it okay to be a freak, but there was also this:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-bowie-and-rock-n-rolls-statutory-rape-problem
I read a few articles on that. It could have been more painful, because a lot of the musicians that came up weren't ones I cared for. Then Dee Dee Ramone came up, and that wasn't so much disappointment or disbelief as this anger, that just for once in your life could you do the right thing?
I want to see if I can unsnarl some of this knotted tangle.
First of all, Prince - who inspired a very similar grief for many - also comes up in that article. Whomever you love and like and admire, often you know about them because they are famous in some way, and that gives them opportunities, and a lot of them committed statutory rape. I'm pretty sure they didn't think of it that way, but they did.
I'm not completely against acknowledging that it could have been viewed differently then, but there's a danger in doing that. First of all, it was illegal then too, which they surely could have known.
I was reading a thread recently with people sharing things others had done for them. For one person, it was that when she was young (though legal) and vulnerable, a man old enough to be her father did not sleep with her. She was there at his house, and they could have, but he not only stopped himself but told her that this would not be good for her. It would have had emotional ramifications for her that it wouldn't have had for him, but he put her first and she still remembers that with gratitude.
For my own part, I had not ever been really into Bowie. The freak thing kind of put me off, and I liked some of his music but I didn't really grow to appreciate it until a few years ago. However, I did like him. Later when I read a biography and I saw things about him giving songs to groups that were falling apart, or pulling artists in a slump into the studio with him, I assumed that was what I was responding to there. So I find it easy to think of him as a kind and considerate person, who still did something wrong and damaging. I can picture that against a context of male pleasure being prioritized over female safety, and anything that sounded vaguely moral rejected as too uptight, regardless of its value.
But remember, I came up with my rule already: we need to think of the victims first.
Okay, Lori Mattix seems to be okay with it, though there could be some denial there. There are also a lot of girls that I don't know the names of. How do we fix that? We can't go back in time, but we can be understanding of people who are coming forward now. We can listen now. We can provide support now.
That should go beyond a listening ear (though that is a great starting place) but also working for wage equality and mental health parity. If women have the resources they need to heal and to leave destructive situations, that is a start.
We should be providing early and appropriate sex education. That should include mental health information like how girls who sleep with older men - famous or not - tend to suffer later. That will require being able to talk about sex without getting all weird about it. We can do that.
When the flood of #metoo stories was starting, there would often be questions asked about if various offenders could be forgiven, because we were still focusing on the perpetrators instead of the victims. It could be a very reasonable question to ask - before we ask about forgiveness - to ask if they are sorry, because there have been some pretty lousy apologies put forth.
The better question to ask is what we would like to see different. That can be a difference in the perpetrators, but I think will also need to be a difference in us.
We can probably see a difference between David Bowie sleeping with one groupie and Jimmy Page arranging her kidnapping and Roy Moore going so persistently after teen girls that he was banned from a mall. We need to be able to do that without justifying the "lesser" actions. We can probably let go of anger if we can focus on making sure that everyone is okay now - supported, heard, and helped.
And I'm pretty sure that's going to take overturning the kyriarchy, but I promise it will be better for everyone when we do.
March 26, 2018
But I like him!
One of the celebrities that irritated me recently was Sharon Osbourne in her defense of James Franco.
I like Sharon and I don't hate her for this. Liking is important, though, because clearly her issue was that she liked James Franco and did not want to believe bad things about him.
I am sure it was easy for her to say that the accusers were just looking for their chance at fame, because everyone says that, even though we have already gone over that this would be a terrible strategy and doesn't seem to accurately convey anything. That has not affected its popularity.
Beyond that, for the students who were taking a class on sex scenes, Osbourne's response was "What did they expect?"
I want to deconstruct that a bit.
First of all, everything I have ever read from actors on sex scenes is that they aren't sexy at all. There are all of these details that you need to remember about blocking, which gets more complicated due to the physical proximity of the actors and the desire to make things look more intimate than they are. While remembering all of these unsexy details, you need to convey a completely different set of feelings and emotions. And it is awkward, because any body insecurities you have can come out, along with any concerns about significant others or your parents seeing the finished product.
Given that, I would expect a workshop on doing sex scenes to cover safety, tips and tricks for making some things look better, and some key coverage of breaking the ice with and being supportive to your coworker.
Osbourne's comment seemed to indicate that if an actor is holding a special workshop for sex scenes, he is doing it as a prowling opportunity, which is not exactly good faith, and I imagine would be highly unnecessary.
(One of the accusations is that he removed plastic guards that act as shields between bodies, so maybe his class wasn't safety-focused.)
It is still easy to formulate something in there are about women being stupid gold-diggers.
As it is, I know that the reason some people participated in Studio 4 is specifically to get parts, because when you don't have any connections getting you into promising auditions, a class that not only teaches you something but has specific access to roles sounds really good, and worth the investment. (Studio 4 had a monthly $300 tuition.)
Even more than that, I can totally imagine young women not only hoping to get jobs but also daydreaming about Franco himself. Maybe he will like me. Maybe he will ask me out. Is that dumb? Maybe, but it's nice to have daydreams, and it doesn't have to be harmful. It certainly doesn't mean that when it only partially comes true, so he is interested in you, but his interest is in degrading you -- you did not earn that.
It is a fairly good example of the uneven power dynamics. It is not just that Franco has the reputation to seem like a good choice as an acting teacher, and that he has the resources to set up classes that look legitimate, but he also has the famous friends who will stand up for him.
The really weird part to me is that Franco has seemed to revel in the weird parts of his reputation, where he might do something like that, but that doesn't seem to stop people from defending him.
It must be great being famous.
I like Sharon and I don't hate her for this. Liking is important, though, because clearly her issue was that she liked James Franco and did not want to believe bad things about him.
I am sure it was easy for her to say that the accusers were just looking for their chance at fame, because everyone says that, even though we have already gone over that this would be a terrible strategy and doesn't seem to accurately convey anything. That has not affected its popularity.
Beyond that, for the students who were taking a class on sex scenes, Osbourne's response was "What did they expect?"
I want to deconstruct that a bit.
First of all, everything I have ever read from actors on sex scenes is that they aren't sexy at all. There are all of these details that you need to remember about blocking, which gets more complicated due to the physical proximity of the actors and the desire to make things look more intimate than they are. While remembering all of these unsexy details, you need to convey a completely different set of feelings and emotions. And it is awkward, because any body insecurities you have can come out, along with any concerns about significant others or your parents seeing the finished product.
Given that, I would expect a workshop on doing sex scenes to cover safety, tips and tricks for making some things look better, and some key coverage of breaking the ice with and being supportive to your coworker.
Osbourne's comment seemed to indicate that if an actor is holding a special workshop for sex scenes, he is doing it as a prowling opportunity, which is not exactly good faith, and I imagine would be highly unnecessary.
(One of the accusations is that he removed plastic guards that act as shields between bodies, so maybe his class wasn't safety-focused.)
It is still easy to formulate something in there are about women being stupid gold-diggers.
As it is, I know that the reason some people participated in Studio 4 is specifically to get parts, because when you don't have any connections getting you into promising auditions, a class that not only teaches you something but has specific access to roles sounds really good, and worth the investment. (Studio 4 had a monthly $300 tuition.)
Even more than that, I can totally imagine young women not only hoping to get jobs but also daydreaming about Franco himself. Maybe he will like me. Maybe he will ask me out. Is that dumb? Maybe, but it's nice to have daydreams, and it doesn't have to be harmful. It certainly doesn't mean that when it only partially comes true, so he is interested in you, but his interest is in degrading you -- you did not earn that.
It is a fairly good example of the uneven power dynamics. It is not just that Franco has the reputation to seem like a good choice as an acting teacher, and that he has the resources to set up classes that look legitimate, but he also has the famous friends who will stand up for him.
The really weird part to me is that Franco has seemed to revel in the weird parts of his reputation, where he might do something like that, but that doesn't seem to stop people from defending him.
It must be great being famous.
