The Stake

recognizing the best and worst in pop culture

Embodying hope in the Wizard of Oz: Casting Dorothy as a young black woman

by 1 Comment

a poster for Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz, 1900.

On the Saturday after Thanksgiving, my family and I went to the Children’s Theatre Company’s production of The Wizard of Oz in Minneapolis. The experience was deeply moving because Traci Allen Shannon, a young black actress, plays Dorothy. Her performance was amazing, and she received a standing ovation from the crowd, which was primarily white families, including my own.

By casting a black actress as Dorothy, a role made famous by Judy Garland in the 1939 classic film, the Children’s Theatre Company playfully subverts institutional racism by intertwining the modern fairytale with the American struggle for justice and equality. The following are my reflections and interpretations, which are far from authoritative, but nonetheless amusing to share.

Across town in north Minneapolis, another drama was unfolding. Except this one was not on the stage but on the streets. On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, four masked gunman opened fire on a peaceful gathering of activists who were protesting the killing of a young black man named Jamar Clark by local police. In the midst of such violence, seeing this version of The Wizard of Oz gave me a new language to think critically, live compassionately and step out in courage. Casting Dorothy as a young black girl inspired me to see the play through the lens of the black experience. The Wizard of Oz has a unique relationship with the black community. The 1974 production of ‘The Wiz’ reinterpreted the story for modern audiences. Last week’s televised production of ‘The Wiz Live’ highlights this cultural heritage.

I will be referencing ideas pioneered by C. G. Jung, a modern psychologist, as I reflect on the journey that Dorothy undertakes in Oz. Jung pioneered the theory that we each have a subconscious inner world by which we relate to the world around us. By consciously engaging our inner world, our personalities begin a symbolic journey that strives for wholeness. The structure of the play highlights Dorothy’s outer life in Kansas and her inner world in Oz. Elements of her life in Kansas are symbolically embodied by characters in Oz. In this production of The Wizard of Oz, we can’t help but question our assumptions about race and joyfully join with Dorothy and her friends as they struggle for wholeness. For more information about C. G. Jung, click here.

Dean Holt, Reed Sigmund, Traci Allen Shannon and Bradley Greenwald. Photo by Dan Norman in The Wizard of Oz.

The opening context of the story is pretty straight forward. Dorothy and Toto are in trouble with Miss Almira Gultch (Kansas equivalent to Wicked Witch of the West) after being bit by Toto. Alma has labeled Toto a ‘menace to society’ and is planning to use the law to euthanize Toto, with the added threat that the farm be taken away from Uncle Henry and Aunt Em if they object. Isn’t this a classic American miscarriage of justice: using law and order to label, segregate, threaten and steal property with the use of violent force, all because a dog bit someone. It’s telling that Baum used Toto, a dog, to illustrate this dynamic of overbearing power that is oppressive in nature. By using a dog, Baum raises a mirror to the way our society dehumanizes people and categorizes some to be less than human, eroding equality and justifying violence.

The first viscerally uncomfortable moment for me came when Dorothy was surrounded by three white men. The scene is one of power politics, and Dorothy is neither white, nor male, but these men are farm hands in the poor regionalist landscape of the Great Depression. They don’t embody male privilege or white supremacy. They don’t have any power over Dorothy, or anyone else for that matter. They work for the farmer and are looking out for Dorothy as the Farmer’s daughter. It is no wonder that Baum inverts these characters and introduces them as Dorothy’s companions as the Scarecrow, Tin Man and the Lion.

The real oppressor of the scene is Miss Almira Gultch, and each of the men are telling Dorothy how to stand up to her accuser. Even if their message is empowering, their body language is clearly marked by a white swagger that overpowers Dorothy. They encourage her to stand up to the personal attacks, but when they are confronted by Miss Almira Gultch they sulk and betray Dorothy. This illustrates a common attitude amongst people who identify with the struggle for justice, but who abandon the cause as soon as there is a personal cost or sacrifice associated with standing in solidarity with the downtrodden. The reason for the reluctance to challenge authority of unjust laws is the fear of reprisal, lack of knowledge and lack of compassion. It is no wonder that these are the exact states of mind that we find in the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion.

The fact that the the great and powerful ‘Wizard of Oz’ doesn’t actually have the power to give Scarecrow a brain, Tin Man a heart and Lion courage, exposes the Wizard for the man that he is, a mere charlatan. I recognized in the Wizard, the same projection of power that we give to our president. A lot of mythic power is given to the leader of the free world. The truth is that real change comes from the bottom up, and not the other way around. Transformation is experienced in the struggle against oppression, which indirectly endows us with the dignity of a liberated people, living in the land of the free and the brave.

Dorothy and her friends are sent on a mission to rid Oz of the oppressive Wicked Witch of the West. This is a morality play between good and evil. In the land of Oz, there are surreal solutions to problems. Dorothy uses water, a cleansing agent, to melt the Wicked Witch. By using water, Baum emphasizes a cleansing approach to the problem of evil. We are to fight oppression by cleansing our lives. This is an act of introspection that has more to do with taking a hard long look in the mirror. Dorothy’s heart and mind are transformed by how she contends with the oppression in the land of Oz. She is not alone in this battle. She has friends, who are also on a quest. They find what they are looking for within the arena. They find out what they are made of, and as it turns out, they aren’t just made out of straw, tin and fear.

Two groups are liberated within the play. The first are the munchkins, and the second are the flying monkeys. These groups are the masses of Oz. Both groups are under the grip of oppression that keeps them from reaching their full potential, and unleashing who they are meant to be. The munchkins were oppressed by the Wicked Witch of the East, who is defeated simply by Dorothy’s arrival in Oz. By simply showing up, and being conscious of our inner world, a great oppressor is vanquished. The munchkins represent childlike wonder and innocence, which unleashes the power of the imagination. When Dorothy puts on the shoes of the Wicked Witch of the East, she assumes the role of liberator, a new power that challenges oppression by simply being present.

The other group that is often neglected as being liberated are the flying monkeys. Under the Wicked Witch’s spell, they are submissive to her powers. After the Wicked Witch melts away, the flying monkeys are stunned, but quickly realize their chains have been broken too. They let out a triumphant cheer because their allegiance and identity are no longer tied to the Wicked Witch of the West. They have been set free by Dorothy. Dorothy has no use for the flying monkeys so she quickly disbands the army. In their new freedom, the flying monkeys have a decision to make. Their joy gives them the strength to be free. Their psychological state is similar to people who have been at war for so long that they don’t even realize there is another way to live without violence, without wielding weapons and without using force to get one’s way. If you are interested in reading more about the brain science behind gun ownership, there is a good article that explores the topic in the The Guardian.

Violence is justified wherever there is a lack of imagination. The literal and figurative meanings of The Wizard of Oz creates an expansive landscape for the imagination to rethink and renew its vision of what it means to be human. Dorothy returns to Kansas with renewed wonder and awe as she encounters each person. Dorothy has undergone a transformation in her personality. She was anxious and scared, and now she is confident and animated by love. This is the power of the liberated imagination: outer realities of injustice are internalized and transformed inside a person for the sole purpose of returning to the world with creativity, power and a new authority rooted in nonviolence. By confronting our inner demons, we break the chain of demonizing others in the outside world. We can begin to encounter each person with a unveiled wonder, and this challenges our preconceived ideas, stereotypes and biases.

There are myriad ways the inner world will exact a change in our lives. For some, this will mean beginning an inner journey to forgive police officers that have become symbols of oppression. For others, this will mean to acknowledge white privilege and begin the journey to tear down institutional racism. For some it will mean to stop shouting into Facebook, and begin a real friendship rooted in humbly listening to our black brothers and sisters. It will mean joining the Black Lives Matter movement because we are white, and we identify with the truth communicated by Martin Luther King Jr. when he said that “an injustice somewhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

I want to end by thanking the Children’s Theatre company for their leadership and creativity and especially the joy and openness by which Traci Allen Shannon played Dorothy. Her performance was amazing. In a recent interview with the Children’s Theatre, Traci Allen Shannon says, “We like to say that art imitates life. Well, life is colorful and diverse, and I love when art takes on those same characteristics. I’m thrilled to be playing Dorothy, and I’m thrilled to do it for our very special audience of young people who haven’t yet learned to make all of the color distinctions that we make in our society. For the children who see this show, the people on the stage will look like the people they see in life every day, representing different shapes, sizes, colors, and cultures.” And I would only add that for the adults that see this show, the people on stage will look like the people in our dreams that uphold our highest ideals and who transform us from the inside out.

Rob Larson wrote this article for The Stake. Rob lives with his wife and two children in Evanston, IL. They visit the Twin Cities for the Holidays and have made it a point to always see a show at Children’s Theatre.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

The Stake Podcast - Nightcrawler

by Leave a Comment

The 70s-inspired genre film Nightcrawler depicts the anti-social Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he embarks on a career as a freelance “nightcrawler”-photographers who pursue crime, death and devastation to sell to local news stations. Considered by many critics to be one of the best films of 2014, and Andrew, Chris ZF and Chris Ervasti seem to agree.

Gyllenhaal’s performance is a powerhouse and leads to a conversation about Terrence Rafferty’s article The Decline of the American Actor.

Listen to the episode on Libsyn, or find and follow the podcast on iTunes or Stitcher

Next week on The Stake Podcast:Freddy Krueger is iconic creation of Wes Craven’s career. The horror legend died recently, and we are remembering Wes Craven with a double-feature: 1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, and 1994’s Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

The Harry Potter Alliance’s Jackson Bird Comes Out as Transgender

by 2 Comments

Transgender identity is difficult to talk about. This is in part because sexuality and gender identity are personal and sensitive topics for public conversation. But this difficulty also comes from a lack of education. On a language level, many of us just don’t know how to talk about trans identity.

This fact is not lost on Jackson Bird. Bird is currently the Communications Director of the Harry Potter Alliance, a fan-activist organization that uses the internet to turn a love of stories like Harry Potter or Hunger Games into organized social action. The group has figured out how to galvanize online fan passion for good, and used that knowledge to fight child slavery and battle economic inequality.

Those online efforts got another powerful, affirming video this week, when Bird, a 25-year old Texas native now living in New York City, posted a video to YouTube in which he comes out as transgender.

Any instance of coming out is one to be celebrated, and Jackson’s video is courageous. It provides a positive model for trans youth of proclaiming one’s identity with pride. It also has important messages for the straight community. What makes Jackson’s video important for heteronormative viewers is the frank recognition of how hard it is just to talk about gender identity. “For anyone who is not familiar with exactly what that means,” he says half way through his 12 minute video, “it’s basically everything I’ve just said.”

Bird takes the time to educate his viewers about how media representation has failed trans youth, how others can aid his transition, and how to simply speak to each other going forward.

But change is difficult, and education takes time. “I will be patient, I promise,” Jackson says, in a moment that calls out the deep privilege afforded by heteronormativity. “Even though I will point out that I have been being patient for 25 years.”

In the days since his video went live, I e-mailed with Bird, and asked him where he learned about gender and sexual identity growing up in Texas, why it’s so difficult to talk about gender equality, and why he decided it was time to come out.

You mention the number of times you have re-written this video, the amount of rehearsal in your head that went on throughout your life. How does it feel, having published and released it to the world?

I’ve written fragments of it for years so it feels really good to have put it all in order and made a complete script out of it. Having released it to the world is real weird. I’d been planning on releasing it on this day for so long and working so hard at various logistics that, in many ways, it just feels like what I had to do. I have to keep reminding myself that it was actually a very big deal.

I think I’m also still in shock. I’m still sifting through all the messages and stuff that I’ve gotten so I haven’t had too much time to adjust to life on the other side of coming out yet. Here and there I keep reminding myself like, “oh yeah, I can say [insert mundane part of my life] online now” because people know. It’ll be weird not having to filter things from a gender perspective anymore.

You’ve been involved in LGBT education efforts, but you’re most recent video, Coming Out, is a personal history. Why did you decide that now was the time to tell your own story?

I’ve been working up the strength to transition for five and a half years. A few months ago, I started planning the actual logistics of starting transition, which necessarily included telling the online community I’m a part of. Because my professional and social lives (as well as my internet and IRL lives) are so inextricably entwined, and because transitioning as transgender is much more physically visible than being open about your sexuality, the only way I could possibly do this without being public about it would be to quit my job, quit everything I do on the internet, stop talking to just about everyone I know, and move away or something. That used to be reality (and still is) for a lot of transgender people, but I knew it didn’t have to be for me because I’m a part of such a progressive, welcoming community. I knew they’d have my back. I just wasn’t sure about the rest of the world, the people I grew up with in Texas, my extended family. So I had to build up the strength in myself before I could share my story.

There hasn’t been a lot of education around transgender identity in the US. Where did you learn the language of gender identity?

I grew up in Texas so there wasn’t even basic sex education, let alone any discussion of LGBTQ issues. The only time I can remember a teacher ever mentioning something other than heterosexuality was when my biology teacher told us bisexual people were more susceptible to the flu.

Fortunately, my older brother always liked pushing the bounds of gender a bit too. He introduced me to Rocky Horror Picture Show, Eddie Izzard, and glam rock at a young age. I grew up idolizing anyone who rebelled against gender norms, but I had zero language to describe it and I didn’t think that any of it could apply to me. All the examples I saw were men experimenting with femininity - not women experimenting with masculinity.

I didn’t learn about the difference between the words sex and gender or that transgender people could be gay or that transitioning was even possible until I was a freshmen at Southwestern University (often referred to as the “Gomorrah to University of Texas’ Sodom” by Texans). It was a haven for liberal LGBTQA students and even had an openly genderqueer professor. Once I got some basic education, it was like seeing the world for the first time after having been in Plato’s cave. I started experimenting with my own identity and started consuming every single thing I could about trans issues. I watched documentaries and YouTube videos. I spent hours on trans Tumblrs, subreddits, and discussion boards. Once I transferred to New York University, I read every single book in the transgender section at Bobst Library. While the academic side of educating yourself is helpful, the more important thing is listening to real people and thinking critically about the complexities of all of their experiences.

You talk a lot about words in this video. From the words you used in your youth-sister, daughter, girlfriend-to the pronouns that now accurately describe your own identity. Why do you think it’s so hard to wrap words around sexuality and gender?

We’re always taught that words have power, but we don’t like words to mean different things than what we’re taught. We don’t like words to change. When we’re told we can’t say certain words because they have the potential to hurt or trigger someone or further systemic discrimination, we get annoyed at having to be “politically correct.” I think that’s a big part of why some people can have trouble switching names and pronouns or figuring out the right words to say when referring to other peoples’ identities and experiences. There’s also the fact that our basic education and media representation really sucks at explaining anything that’s not heteronormative. There’s a lot to it. We have a lot of work to do as a society. Equality for LGBTQ people isn’t going to happen when marriage equality is legal everywhere, just like we don’t live in a post-racial society just because Barack Obama is president. There is so so much more to it.

I think the most powerful moment in your video is when you state, calmly, “I will be patient.” Why is it so hard for so many people to talk about gender identity?

Huh, I didn’t expect that to be the most powerful moment at all. It’s interesting you thought that. I suppose one reason it’s hard for people to talk about gender identity is because they have a specific idea about who they think people are and it’s hard for them to rewire their brains to something else. It’s very difficult to know everything about a person, even if you are very close friends or family, but especially if the person is just someone you know of, like a public figure. It’s natural for people to fill in gaps of information by creating their own narratives that eventually just become fact in their brains. When new information is revealed that doesn’t conform to the narrative they created, it can be confusing.


Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Do not seek validation in social media if you want to write about art

by Leave a Comment

Yesterday, I had an argument about The Hunger Games. Briefly, my opponent claimed that the sci-fi series takes the side of populism in general, but in refusing to take a specific position on the political questions of our time regarding Conservatism, Progressivism, and what it means to be “for the people”, the film fails to make a politically resonant critique of contemporary society. I argued that this refusal is one of the great achievements of the series, that by allowing both Conservatives and Progressives to identify their own political ideology within the world of Panem and the Districts, the series actually makes a more powerful criticism of American politics.

I still think I’m right (sorry Andrew), but it doesn’t really matter. I woke up this morning appreciating conversations about politics, film and interpretation. Validation of my reading of The Hunger Games wasn’t really the point. I wasn’t seeking validation in my position in that fight so much as I was interested in engaging a politically progressive (small p) story about economic inequality in a sci-fi dystopia.

Today, I read Jerry Saltz’s editorial at Vulture, “When Did the Art World Get so Conservative?” The first reaction I had was the desire to tweet @jerrysaltz and ask him why he’s wasting his time reading negative comments on Facebook and Twitter. Then, I realized, that would not be an honest engagement with the man or his article. So instead, here we are.

Saltz’s piece laments, among other things, the reactionary nature of social media as a venue for mostly angry or offended individuals to vent at art and art critics. He thinks that the moral policing of art by liberals has led to a much more conservative (small c) landscape for artists and critics. Saltz writes of having been descended upon by the “decency police” for posting graphic images of women in photography, while even more graphic images from medieval illuminated manuscripts of torture and castration “delighted everyone.” He points to the likes on Facebook and Instagram, and the Twitter reaction to various art objects in various mediums, and sees a world less receptive of art expression.

Recounting the treatment he has received on social media-being called a sexist, a racist, etc. with little contextual regard for his actual arguments-Saltz wonders why art and conversations about art in our era have become so heavily policed. I’m not particularly sympathetic to Jerry Saltz or his hurt feelings from Facebook comments or his take on social media, which seems largely to be wondering why Jerry Saltz is not more well-received on social media.

Still, he does eventually ask an important question when it comes to how we treat art objects in our daily interactions.

Progressives, Saltz says, do well to seek the eradication of sexism and prejudice in culture. “There is genuine progressive value in that” he says, citing the attention given to military and campus rape epidemics, and to the abuse of people of color by police forces across the US. “But when we’re treating works of art as ruthlessly and unsubtly as we would hate speech, is it political progress or aesthetic ignorance?”

The question isn’t unique, but it’s always instructive. It has to do with individual taste, politics, and a personal willingness to engage with art-in any form-honestly. While Saltz’s article deal with problems around art and medium (the fight about “paintings” vs. “prints” is lost on me), the resulting question is appropriate not only for art critics or academics. Questions of engagement, opinions, and personal attacks affect writers covering any cultural outputs. And in the end, they seem to be, just like Saltz’s editorial, about our desire for validation.

We all want our values to be shared and reinforced. We want our opinions to be validated by our peers. Now, it seems, we want our opinions validated by bloggers and Facebook users, total strangers. too. There are and always have been naysayers and scolds who set out to tear others down. They do so not for political progress or artistic engagement, but out of aesthetic ignorance or personal pleasure. They’ve just never been easier to find.

Four years ago, the great populist of film criticism, Roger Ebert, wrote about “the scolds” who “have emerged in recent days to smack at critics” who did not love Christopher Nolan’s Inception. Whenever I see an article like Saltz’s, I am reminded of Roger Eberts’ blog-post on Inception and its haters, and the “human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.” Specifically, I remember this: “The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.”

While the sci-fi spectacle Inception may seem a far cry from the the Sugar-Sphynx of Kara Walker, the inherent defensiveness of voicing of criticism and opinions is the same. What matters is not whether or not an agreement is found, but whether engagement is found. If you’re not invested in engaging with a film or a painting (or print?) then you are not interested in political progress or aesthetics or cultural dialogue. And you know what? That’s fine; get thee to Rotten Tomatoes or the comments of a Facebook posting by Jerry Saltz.

But if you are in interested in art and it’s meaning, then do not seek validation from social media. It’s possible you might find it, but you’ll also, always, find the scolds. Just hope that someone takes the time to read your work, or watch your film, or see your painting, or even listen to your political interpretation of The Hunger Games, and gives you the courtesy of an honest engagement.

Time Magazine wonders if we should ban the word Feminist. We shouldn’t.

by 1 Comment

In a reader survey, Time Magazine is asking what word should be banished from the lexicon in 2015. The candidates include mostly online turns of phrase and slang, such as obvi, basic and om nom nom nom, among others.

Also on the list? Feminist.

What’s wrong with the word feminist? Time explains:

feminist: You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.

What? What are you talking about, Time Magazine?

Feminist is one of the best words of 2014. Uttered by actors and politicians and writers and gamers and radio-hosts, positively and negatively. Promoted by pro-equality women and men of all ages all year long. It was blaring in lights behind one of the world’s most famous pop stars.

Feminist was explained, mansplained, defamed, celebrated, manipulated, and championed. It was everywhere. Emma Watson formally invited the whole world to be feminists.

And you want to ban it, Time Magazine? Why?

One possibility? Because feminists, as actual persons, are pretty radical. What it means to identify with feminism as a reality, to view equality as a substantive goal, that’s difficult stuff to deal with. It requires an individual to honestly look at their own lives and ask complicated questions about money and power and justice and culture. It requires an individual to consider what it means to be a woman or a man, or a trans individual, who is white or black or brown or Native and say: does my life benefit from inequality? And, if so, what can I do to change that?

If that’s something you don’t want to do, then those who have-feminists-are going to be a real problem.

Time Magazine, like countless others out in internet-land, has “nothing against feminism itself” of course. The idea of equality is all well and good. Its just talking about it that’s a problem. Hearing people discuss what feminism actually means and how it affects individuals? Hearing people say they are actually feminists? That’s just too much for Time Magazine.

Sorry to mansplain. But we should keep “feminist” around for a while. If for no other reason than because Time Magazine thinks 2015 is the year to get rid of it.

Emma Watson Spoke beautifully on the cause of Feminism, then 4Chan reminded the world why we need Feminism

by 1 Comment

Over the weekend the actress and Goodwill Ambassador for Women to the United Nations, Emma Watson, delivered a powerful speech on the efforts to bring gender equality to the world. She spoke eloquently of the privileges she has known as a British woman and of her embrace of feminism as an individual. She spoke of the unfortunate impression that feminism is akin to ‘man-hating,’ and the damage that this impression has created for the cause of equality around the globe.

She announced the creation of a new program called He For She, which aims to galvanize as many men and boys to be advocates for change as possible. And Watson took the opportunity to make a formal invitation on behalf of feminism to men. “How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feels welcome to participate in the conversation?”

In her speech, Watson spoke at times about the word feminism and the response it evokes, and in doing so reminded me of one given by Joss Whedon last year, which focused on the word “feminism” itself. But where Whedon spoke from the perspective of a writer talking about words and what they signifiy, Ms. Watson spoke of the word as an idea which carries the future well-being of our species.

“If you hate the word,” Watson tells her audience, “it is not the word that is important. It is the idea and the ambition behind it.”

Her speech is powerful and you should watch it.

Unfortunately, a young woman advocating equality does not pass idly on the internet, and right on cue we are all reminded why this work is so necessary. The speech has made Emma Watson the target of a new directed misogynistic attack, with 4Chan users announcing a website titled “Emma You Are Next.”

The site features only a countdown clock and an image of Emma Watson wiping a tear from her eye accompanied by the text “Never forget, the biggest to come thus far” (screen-grab here). The implication seems to be that when the countdown reaches zero, the site will release nude photos of the actress in similar fashion to those released last month of Jennifer Lawrence and a number of other celebrities.

Whether the site and its creators have anything to release on that date or are just pulling a prank for publicity at this stage seems beside the point. Be it the seemingly indiscriminate theft of private property or the direct targeting and harassment of an individual feminist critic, speaking out on behalf of equality requires a steel-resolve from the women who take to the stage or appear on our screens to do it. Lucky for the world, there are many women who maintain such resolve, celebrities and internet personalities among them, but more importantly countless women around the world working everyday for the cause of feminism.

Those advocates, like Ms. Watson, like all women, deserves respect, and such advocacy is a cause for celebration, not misogyny and attack.

Once and for all: There is no such thing as nerd credentials

by 1 Comment

If someone walked into your home and asked you to identify your nerd credentials, what would you do? Let’s say this person considers you one of the ‘fake geeks’ that have become a target of so much animosity. Or he (it’s probably a he) thinks you’re putting on airs, adopting a posture that has current cultural cache, like comic book fan, but he suspects in reality you don’t care at all about comics, you don’t have them lining your basement in boxes and bags surrounded by unopened collectibles. This is what nerds really do, right?

Oh. And you’re politically liberal.

This guy, we’ll call him Charles, thinks that you, like the people you admire, maybe Rachel Maddow or Melissa Harris-Perry or Bill Nye, are an insincere fraud. You are not a nerd. You’re trying to be, maybe, but you are a nerd incorrectly because you’re following the footseps of frauds. Your life is reminiscent of those you admire, “professional nerds”, adopting a posture that is “little more than a ruse… stereotypical facsimiles of the real thing. They have the patois but not the passion; the clothes but not the style; the posture but not the imprimatur.”

You want to be smart, or you want people to think you’re smart. But your just faking it. Not Charles, though. Charles is smart. Not only does he say “imprimatur” but he says you don’t have it. (Sorry Charles, but I went to graduate school at a Catholic University so I do know what imprimatur means. Credentials!).

Be prepared when Charles comes over to show him that you do have the imprimatur. You ARE a Star Trek nerd and have not only all seasons of TNG but also Deep Space 9, that’ll really show him you qualify. Because apparently being a nerd the right way means knowing that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars.

Have your credentials ready, nerds. Charles is coming.

I planned not to respond to this thing because there’s no value to The Stake in responding to political arguments presented at the National Review. That’s not really a concern for us. But Charles C.W. Cooke in his piece Smarter than Thou has embraced such an arrogant and insulting view towards popular culture as a whole that we could not let it slide. So. Mr. Cooke. You don’t like the politicization of science? Me neither. You think this is a liberal problem? I think that’s incorrect. That’s about all I can muster on the political part of this article.

It’s not lost on us that an article which purports to claim liberals adopt a smarter than thou posture is dripping with superiority and condescension; nor that it seeks to reject the exclusive definition of being a “nerd” by tightly defining what it means to NOT be a nerd (liberal, Star Wars, Mario Kart, Movies not comics). That it embraces what it considers to be the very problem it seeks to attack: the nerds that aren’t Charles C.W. Cooke nerds are fake nerds.

We need to put this idea to bed once and for all. Everyone, everywhere: there are no nerd credentials.

There are no papers to show, no litmus tests to pass. There are no gatekeepers and if you ever come across a guy (it’s probably a guy) who says you don’t meet his standards for geek culture, just know that he’s wrong, and an asshole.

To the gatekeepers: Stop insulating yourself against the world. Stop creating boundaries about what culture says is acceptably nerdy and what is not. Don’t write about how “actual science” works and then insult a Rhodes Scholar by reducing her to “wearing glasses and babbling about statistics.” Even some of us “insecure hipsters” who majored in English care about science and know how it works.

Anyway. Here are things that are popular among many people of different kinds and have been for many years:

Star Trek.

Star Wars.

The X-Men.

Movies.

Video Games.

Politics.

Conservatism.

Liberalism.

Science.

Politics in Science.

Wanting to be smart.

I’d agree that some things, like comic books and physics, are having a surge in popularity in the past decade. And as someone who loves comic books and has been interested in science for a while, I must say: THAT’S GREAT! That’s not threatening but wonderful. Those things that are most popular in our culture are popular because the people who are alive enjoy them and want to share them.

If you enjoy something and someone else that is not like you enjoys that same thing, that means it is valuable and worth sharing. Not that the other person is a fraud.

So, Mr. Cooke, please continue to criticize inconsistency in the political realm, especially when our political parties abuse science for short-term political gain. But the whole fake geek thing? Come on.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Sinead O’Connor pens letter to Miley Cyrus *UPDATED

by 8 Comments

**Editor’s Note: Scroll to the bottom for an update**

Few women have had greater impact on my life than Sinead O’Connor. The first time I consciously purchased music, I bought I Do Not Want What I Have Not Got, on tape, from Target. I’ve followed her through that college-radio to sold-out stadium rise, her Pope ripping protest and American absence (Sinead O’Connor rips the Pope, 20 Years later), through her advocacy for the victims of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, and have run countless miles to her most recent, beautiful record: How About I Be Me (and You Be You).

In college I once wrote that O’Connor more than any other figure taught me about how to treat women, and though today that’s likely untrue, I admire her greatly. If it’s possible to love a stranger you know only through their art and words, I love Sinead O’Connor.

Which brings us to Miley Cyrus. Recently, Miley Cyrus cited Sinead O’Connor’s perfect and haunting Nothing Compares 2 U video as inspiration for her sledgehammer-licking Wrecking Ball video.

In response, O’Connor published an open letter to Ms. Cyrus on her website, expressing concern for the young pop idol and the music and media world of which she seems ignorant. The letter is long, but worth a read, touching on what it means to be a woman ogled, a pop star in a business that cares little for its stars, and finding respect and value as a creature of sexual appetites.

Pop culture media is a mighty ax, swung by those will little concern for the bodies standing in the way. O’Connor knows something about being bold without being exploited, and her words on the subject are valuable to everyone.

Dear Miley,

I wasn’t going to write this letter, but today i’ve been dodging phone calls from various newspapers who wished me to remark upon your having said in Rolling Stone your “Wrecking Ball” video was designed to be similar to the one for “Nothing Compares” … So this is what I need to say … And it is said in the spirit of motherliness and with love.

I am extremely concerned for you that those around you have led you to believe, or encouraged you in your own belief, that it is in any way “cool” to be naked and licking sledgehammers in your videos. It is in fact the case that you will obscure your talent by allowing yourself to be pimped, whether it’s the music business or yourself doing the pimping.

Nothing but harm will come in the long run, from allowing yourself to be exploited, and it is absolutely NOT in ANY way an empowerment of yourself or any other young women, for you to send across the message that you are to be valued (even by you) more for your sexual appeal than your obvious talent.

I am happy to hear I am somewhat of a role model for you and I hope that because of that you will pay close attention to what I am telling you.

The music business doesn’t give a sh– about you, or any of us. They will prostitute you for all you are worth, and cleverly make you think its what YOU wanted.. and when you end up in rehab as a result of being prostituted, “they” will be sunning themselves on their yachts in Antigua, which they bought by selling your body and you will find yourself very alone.

None of the men oggling you give a sh– about you either, do not be fooled. Many’s the woman mistook lust for love. If they want you sexually that doesn’t mean they give a f— about you. All the more true when you unwittingly give the impression you don’t give much of a f— about yourself. And when you employ people who give the impression they don’t give much of a f— about you either. No one who cares about you could support your being pimped.. and that includes you yourself.

Yes, I’m suggesting you don’t care for yourself. That has to change. You ought be protected as a precious young lady by anyone in your employ and anyone around you, including you. This is a dangerous world. We don’t encourage our daughters to walk around naked in it because it makes them prey for animals and less than animals, a distressing majority of whom work in the music industry and its associated media.

You are worth more than your body or your sexual appeal. The world of showbiz doesn’t see things that way, they like things to be seen the other way, whether they are magazines who want you on their cover, or whatever.. Don’t be under any illusions.. ALL of them want you because they’re making money off your youth and your beauty.. which they could not do except for the fact your youth makes you blind to the evils of show business. If you have an innocent heart you can’t recognise those who do not.

I repeat, you have enough talent that you don’t need to let the music business make a prostitute of you. You shouldn’t let them make a fool of you either. Don’t think for a moment that any of them give a flying f— about you. They’re there for the money.. we’re there for the music. It has always been that way and it will always be that way. The sooner a young lady gets to know that, the sooner she can be REALLY in control.

You also said in Rolling Stone that your look is based on mine. The look I chose, I chose on purpose at a time when my record company were encouraging me to do what you have done. I felt I would rather be judged on my talent and not my looks. I am happy that I made that choice, not least because I do not find myself on the proverbial rag heap now that I am almost 47 yrs of age.. which unfortunately many female artists who have based their image around their sexuality, end up on when they reach middle age.

Real empowerment of yourself as a woman would be to in future refuse to exploit your body or your sexuality in order for men to make money from you. I needn’t even ask the question.. I’ve been in the business long enough to know that men are making more money than you are from you getting naked. It’s really not at all cool. And it’s sending dangerous signals to other young women. Please in future say no when you are asked to prostitute yourself. Your body is for you and your boyfriend. It isn’t for every spunk-spewing dirtbag on the net, or every greedy record company executive to buy his mistresses diamonds with.

As for the shedding of the Hannah Montana image.. whoever is telling you getting naked is the way to do that does absolutely NOT respect your talent, or you as a young lady. Your records are good enough for you not to need any shedding of Hannah Montana. She’s waaaaaaay gone by now.. Not because you got naked but because you make great records.

Whether we like it or not, us females in the industry are role models and as such we have to be extremely careful what messages we send to other women. The message you keep sending is that it’s somehow cool to be prostituted.. it’s so not cool Miley.. it’s dangerous. Women are to be valued for so much more than their sexuality. we aren’t merely objects of desire. I would be encouraging you to send healthier messages to your peers.. that they and you are worth more than what is currently going on in your career. Kindly fire any motherf—er who hasn’t expressed alarm, because they don’t care about you.

UPDATE:

Miley Cyrus has responded to O’Connor’s letter on Twitter.

What you see here is a tweet from Cyrus reading: Before Amanda Bynes…There was…, attached to a still image of a series of tweets from Sinead O’Connor. O’Connor’s tweets are from 2012, asking her Irish followers for available psychiatric assistance in the wake of on-going depression and an attempt by O’Connor to take her own life.

That Miley Cyrus equates this episode, which led O’Connor to leave Twitter but created an open discussion about mental health awareness in Ireland that she was much praised for, with the conversation about using women’s bodies as sexual objects to sell music is both a tragic failure of empathy and intellect, and further evidence that Ms. Cyrus is indeed in need of help, or at least some growing up.

It’s perfectly acceptable for Miley Cyrus to reject the lecture of an old and no-fun Sinead O’Connor, if that’s how she perceives O’Connor and her letter. She’s an adult; she can do what she wants.

But O’Connor has long been outspoken about her history of mental illness. Speaking out publicly for aid in such times takes courage. It’s not a joke for Cyrus to make in defense of her outrageously sexualized musical and public performance.

*Editor’s note: This article has been edited for clarity.

To contribute, inquire, or complain, write the editor at: thestake.org(at)gmail.com