[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sunanna Bhasin
Lady Gaga’s video for her latest song “Til It Happens to You” opens with a trigger warning explaining that it contains graphic content but “reflects the reality of what is happening daily on college campuses.” In other words, this video needs to be seen. The video challenges common views regarding sexual assault. There’s no “obviously-shady-looking character” that initiates the first attack.
Gaga reveals the truth behind many sexual assault cases: the perpetrator is often a friend or someone close to the victim. It also calls out those who question the victims when they come forward. The irony is that the victims should feel supported enough to speak out, yet the reason they often don’t is because of people – who, in most cases, have never experienced sexual assault – shaming them for getting involved in such egregious acts, implying that they had a choice.
In the music video, a young woman is raped by a colleague in her music studio. In this way, Gaga brings the notion of victim blaming to the forefront: would you really think to blame a girl who is attacked by someone she considers a friend in a work environment?
The pop singer doesn’t stop there. In fact, she explores the stereotypical party setting in order to question the common accusation victim blamers tend to make—“oh, well she shouldn’t have been drinking.” To this Gaga argues, no, he shouldn’t have drugged her drink. This exact instance of sexual assault is depicted in the video when a young man drugs two women at a party by slipping pills (Rohypnol, no doubt) into their drinks. This case is all too familiar to anyone who pays attention to the news. Gaga captures almost every case involving male perpetrators and female victims. While these do not comprise all rape cases, they do make up the majority.
While some may criticize Gaga for excluding scenarios where men are raped, it is imperative to understand that she does this purposely. She makes it clear that she is focusing on sexual assault (which describes less violent cases as well) on college campuses. While she could have broadened the scope of her video, the message she leaves behind can be applied to either of the aforementioned situations: support victims, and don’t be too quick to make assumptions about what happened because you won’t understand “‘til it happens to you.”
Although the video starts out overwhelming and heart wrenching, the most beautiful aspect is the solidarity you see towards the end. Slowly, the victims come together to share their traumatic experiences, and then the community begins to reach out. At the end of the video, the victims march out of a college building together confidently with male and female supporters urging them forward. Gaga encourages viewers to be among those who listen to the victims and try to understand them, but she doesn’t allow you to become complacent just because she has proposed one small solution to a much larger problem. When this group of survivors leave the building, there is the silhouette of a victim who hasn’t been able to speak out yet looming in the background. Gaga’s lesson is clear – make sure that no victim feels isolated or blamed for what happened. This is demonstrated by victims, who had previously tattooed self-hatred on their arms with messages such as “I am worthless” and “Believe me”, writing words of encouragement and love on their bodies: “I am worthy” and “I love myself”. One in five college women will be sexually assaulted this year unless something changes. It’s a haunting statistic mentioned at the end of the video which has resulted in positive changes at McMaster, such as the #consent campaign during welcome week. As the issue of sexual assault becomes more large-scale, international superstars like Lady Gaga address it openly. However, as a McMaster student, I encourage all of you to understand the urgency of dealing with this atrocious rape culture that has encroached onto college campuses across North America and ask yourselves: which role will you play?
[adrotate banner="13"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
On Aug. 30, 2015, Kanye West received an MTV Video Music Award and added a surprise announcement to his acceptance speech. In 2020, he will be running for president of the United States. It may sound absurd for a man with no political background, a track record of publicity gaffs, and a history as a meme to be considering the role of president, but if Donald Trump can do it, why not Yeezy?
Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul and television host, has been the popular front-runner for the Republican Party’s nomination. His popularity stems from his lack of previous involvement in politics, his forthrightness, and his business success—attributes which can also be attributed to West. He has no political experience to date, and his public candid outbursts are passionate and frank. As for business, if the accumulation of wealth makes for effective leadership—as Trump would have us believe—West has the same advantage.
At the age of 38, Kanye is worth an estimated 130 million, and his wife, Kim Kardashian, an additional 85. At the age of 44, Trump’s ex-wife claimed that he was worth a paltry 400 million, a far cry from the billions he supposedly owned at the time. Additionally, he inherited a portion of it, giving him a sizeable head start. Trump’s inheritance also included all of the benefits of being born to a millionaire, with financial direction from his father and a private school education. Even with these advantages, Trump’s financial history is not spotless: his company required a bailout in 1990, only 10 years after he took charge. West, on the other hand, came from a middle-class family, building his wealth from scratch. His effective personal branding and acclaimed musical career have rapidly developed his personal wealth. Trump is not the only aspiring president in possession of a fortune; however, the difference between the two is that West has actual experience amassing one.
An argument against West might be that he is not formal, refined or “presidential” enough, but let us take a moment to consider what that objection might actually mean. Let’s pretend for a second that expectations of presidential decorum are not inherently tied to white privilege. What exactly about Trump carries more of the essence of the “presidential” than Kanye West? Trump’s hairstyle has been a longstanding joke and his sexism and racism are rampant and ubiquitous. Trump’s behaviour is far from decorous, and leagues from what I would desire in a political leader. Let us instead agree that the quality that defines someone as presidential is the process of being elected in a presidential race.
Another advantage that West has over Trump is that he understands systemic racism. West has made multiple public comments about issues regarding race in America, whether it be about the alarmingly underwhelming government aid for Hurricane Katrina’s largely Black victims, or his comments on the persistence of racism despite some steps forward for people of colour. In the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement, with police brutality against Black Americans and people of colour being rife, I care more about a leader’s desire to fight racism than fulfilling Trump’s crackpot plan to build a wall along the Mexican border. Instead of recognizing racism to be a large scale, systematic and nuanced challenge for the next president, Trump has been known to blame immigrants and people of colour for crime rates and sexual assault statistics. Trump announced his candidacy alongside a comment that Mexican immigrants are largely drug dealers, rapists and criminals. This shows a complete lack of comprehension about the state of contemporary America. West understands that racism bars young Black men from positions of leadership or power in America, and we can be certain that as president he would want to change that. Trump may not care about Black people, but West sure does.
So, yes, if I could vote in the 2020 presidential elections, I would choose Kanye West over Donald Trump.
Photo Credit: Michael Tran
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
[adrotate banner="12"]
[adrotate banner="13"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
I found myself ending off this past summer vacation seeking out new niches in the music world. One genre that really caught my ear was something that is known as “industrial.”
Industrial music—if I had to try to define it—is an experimental genre that is a chaotic cluster of lo-fi, harsh noise. The key ingredient to the industrial sound is distortion—not only of instruments, but also of voices and voice clips. Most notably, Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, SPK, Genesis P-Orridge, and Boyd Rice are prominent contributors to the industrial music genre.
When looking for recommendations, I had a song called “Turn Me On Dead Man” suggested to me, which was performed by the latter-most on that list. After the first 30 seconds of that three-minute video, I excitedly began to look up other songs by this artist—also known as Non—because he had the exact vibe I was looking for. After a quick Google search, I was overwhelmed by the results that popped up about this artist. Rice is best known for being a racist, misanthropist, sexist, nihilist, and last—but not least—for playing a large role in Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan. I paused the song I had been listening to so that I could focus on reading an essay he had written, titled “Revolt Against Penis Envy.” By the end of it, I was hoping to find out that what I had read was a satirical piece, but I was wrong. The ideas about rape, maintaining superior status to women, and general ideas of oppressing less privileged groups were so outlandish that I could hardly believe that someone genuinely had these ideas and published them on public forums. Unfortunately, the aforementioned essay was written in earnest; every problematic statement featured in this piece really was a recurring ideal that appeared in Rice’s interviews. I was in a nervous sweat by the time I got to the end, which Rice punctuated with reiterations of his philosophies: “Long live oppression! Long live love! Long live rape!”
The unfortunate thing with this sort of situation is that it’s very common in all facets of media and art. Many, many artists are problematic. The spectrum of problems is wide and far; there are perpetuators of archaic ideas, and further enactors of despicable actions. Whether it’s Woody Allen with his adopted daughter, Sean Penn with Madonna, Chris Brown with Rihanna, or Lena Dunham with just about everything, us consumers are faced with making a moral decision: do we value the consumption of art more than we do our own moral standing?
Such a question is difficult to grapple with, since the idea of the artist is intrinsically linked to the piece of art itself, which we more often than not happen to take for granted. Really, this question is not one that is answered consciously, but through the act of being ignorant and passive about what is being consumed. It isn’t always necessarily the case where an individual is decisively consuming a problematic piece of media—often, when the problematic history of an artist is brought to the attention of this consumer, they become open to learning about who this artist is as a person and what that means for the art they produce.
The problems come in when an individual is educated about the producer of art, yet chooses to ignore the situation. There is a revisiting of this question posed earlier: is the consumption of art valued above an individual’s moral standing? And if so, why? The argument that art can be separated from the artist and subsequently appreciated by an audience relies heavily upon the idea that a work of art is not an extension of an artist. To assume that an artistic piece is not a reflection of the artist’s ideals and interpretations of his experiences is absolutely unreasonable. I argue, absolutely, that any piece of art is a direct reflection of the artist himself.
In conversations along these lines, I can’t help but bring Roland Barthes into the equation. His essay titled “The Death of the Author” touches on this very issue. Essentially, Barthes argues that the image we get of an author is through his writing. According to Barthes, an author—Barthes is referring to writing, specifically, in his piece, but it is easily applied to all media—is born through his writing: we cannot conceive of the writer without first reading his work. The writing only exists through the interpretation of the reader. In Barthes’ opinion, interpretations of the piece of art as a whole are the basis of our understanding of the author. The author’s role in producing a body of text is a misconception of productivity. The author does not produce the text – he is influenced by many factors.
Through a metaphor posed by Barthes, the author is traditionally thought to “nourish” his writing, much like a “father to his child.” However, Barthes argues that the author is born “simultaneously” with his work. The main idea I am pulling from Barthes’ essay is that the author is a product of his writing, which is then interpreted by the readers. The entire work hangs on being read, and this reading colours the reader’s perception of the artist who has produced the work.
Needless to say, in lieu of all of this, I had to drop Boyd Rice from my slow-growing collection of industrial artists. The good news, though, is that there are many other talented artists in the same vein for me to explore. And fortunately, that can also be said about every other art form.
Photo Credit: VICE Media
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
[adrotate banner="12"]
By: Sophie Hunt
It has been said that Bill Cosby is a comedic legend, a cultural icon that has influenced the lives of people across the world. Fans still flock to his shows and pay money for front-row seats in order to listen to his jokes. Yet there is a problematic undertone to Cosby’s performances that these people are ignoring.
There are many dedicated fans of comedy that have chosen to look past the recent sexual assault allegations made against Cosby. Nearly 20 women have stepped forward claiming that Cosby, either decades ago or in recent years, sexually assaulted them in various ways. Despite the allegations and charges that began to surface as far back as 2005, fans of the comedian stand with him and continue to support his career. Cosby has recently visited three cities in Southern Ontario, including Hamilton, and avid fans still attended his comedy show, despite the presence of protestors willing to speak out against Cosby at his events.
The reflexive response of Cosby’s fans is not an isolated incident. Many influential celebrities continue to maintain their fan base despite any wrongdoing on their part. We participate in a culture that allows a celebrity’s popularity and career to cloud the conversations about social issues that should come about from scandals such as Cosby’s.
Why have people chosen to ignore the incredibly serious claims made by these women? Fans have been quoted as saying they support the comedian regardless of the allegations made against him, simply because they enjoy his comedy and have grown up watching Cosby’s work.
There is a passive acceptance in our culture that brands influential individuals as untouchable by the backlash that should come about from the crimes they commit. Regardless of whether or not the claims of these women are true, a precedent must be set when dealing with allegations of this nature. The fact that these women’s claims are so willingly overlooked invalidates their voices, and instead works against their efforts to bring to light horrible crimes that potentially have been committed.
The central concern here is the blatant disregard these fans have for the women that have come forward and revealed their claims against Cosby. Instead of supporting the rights of women who have suffered from sexual assault, or even acknowledging that these allegations exist against Cosby, fans are choosing to turn a blind eye to the overall implications of Cosby’s performances. By allowing him to continue to tour, fans are implicitly working against efforts being made to give voice to those who are fighting for the rights of sexual assault victims.
Cosby’s extensive and influential career does not- and should not- completely discredit the allegations that have been made against him by a continuously growing list of women. His “legendary” status should not invalidate these claims, whether or not he is proven guilty. The voices of these women cannot be ignored, and a vital change needs to be made in the way society views celebrities in the wake of serious allegations made against them.
By: Anthony Manrique
The recent news surrounding Kim Kardashian’s naked photo shoot for Paper Magazine stirred up a huge buzz on the Internet. Apparently the media is so obsessed with her butt that Kim made history by “breaking the internet.” Various media outlets glorified her butt in a way that almost seems like sexual fetishism. It doesn’t make sense that the media is spending so much time talking about a person’s butt for the sole reason of it being big.
Does it even matter? All I know is that it’s just another publicity stunt.
I remember back when Miley Cyrus stirred up controversy during the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards with her antics like twerking and playing with a foam finger. At the time, she did manage to get a lot of attention for her actions, mostly criticizing her for doing such inappropriate acts on stage. A year later, she returned to the 2014 VMAs and yet again turned heads on stage when she sent a homeless young man to accept her award, in order to raise awareness for youth homelessness.
Surprisingly, she received a lot of praise from the press and the audience, with Miley looking like she did it out of sympathy for the poor guy. It seemed like everyone forgot about the events from the previous year, and that this was a chance for Miley to redeem herself. All I could feel back then was sorry for the homeless teen, because it looked like he just used up his fifteen minutes of fame.
Miley trying to highlight a good cause at the VMAs was a personal excuse to receive praise and attention from everyone who once thought of her as scandalous, and the homeless teen was just a tool to help her achieve this goal. Later on, Miley’s homeless VMA date was sentenced to six months in jail for violating probation. As for Miley, well, she’s still in L.A. doing whatever she’s supposed to be doing.
While she definitely did raise awareness for homeless youth, the way she went about it seemed more of a publicity stunt than an actual commitment. It was similar to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos people made to seek attention and “raise awareness,” instead of actually donating.
For quite some time now, I’ve noticed that the media and its audience are unaware of the attention they are giving to publicity stunts that are utterly irrelevant and pretentious. Trying to understand why and what makes them interesting puzzles me. It never made sense how even the most meager of things, such as a picture of someone’s butt or using a good cause to save face, can be newsworthy.
The only celebrities who are worthy of attention are the ones that take an active role on issues that are particularly relevant. Leonardo DiCaprio and Emma Watson are some of the few celebrities who deserve praise for what they’re doing, especially for their respective stances on climate change and feminism.
No self-respecting celebrity would do a publicity stunt to gain more fame or respect. If our society keeps paying attention to celebrities who “gain fame by being famous,” what will become of those who actually deserve it?
Photo Credit: Christopher Polk
“Who killed Laura Palmer?”
It was the unanswerable question that fuelled the world of Twin Peaks—the dark and dreamy 1990s drama about the death of a high school homecoming queen, and a television series that faced a premature ending of its own.
After being axed by ABC one and a half seasons in, the tension-filled mystery left the airwaves with viewers wondering how the critically acclaimed drama could disappear so quickly and unexpectedly.
But just as the show constantly surprised with unexpected mysteries and details, it continues to live up to its mindfucking legacy as it will be returning for a third season more than two decades later.
Twin Peaks will be returning as a nine-episode series on Showtime with show creators David Lynch and Mark Frost writing and producing. The revived series will make its official comeback in 2016, coinciding with the show’s 25th anniversary.
Thanks to the internet and its charming offspring Netflix, Twin Peaks has become an accessible and binge-able series. Its newfound availability has evolved its status from ABC’s rejected wild card to a certified cult classic with a renewed following and interest.
At the time of the show’s first airing, network television served the purpose of funneling the norm into households with three-camera sitcoms and artistically diluted programming. But when Twin Peaks ripped its way through TV guides, it brought artsy and weird to the front lines and set a new standard for primetime television.
Frost and Lynch were accredited with bringing “weirdness” to television with their groundbreaking dark humour and artistic and cinematic filming. Unlike anything else that was offered on network TV, Twin Peaks’ acceptance of the bizarre and questionable served the purpose of slowly euthanizing network television until normalcy would be no more.
Twin Peaks now has the chance to air alongside some of the series it has influenced and essentially made possible. Shows like American Horror Story, True Blood, and The Sopranos have brought oddities and unique visions to TV, but it’s hard to say if any of those styles would have ever been picked up had it not been for Twin Peaks’ initial introductions and scene setting. With complex characters, bold directorial choices, and non-linear plotlines, Twin Peaks changed the game for primetime TV.
Although it appeared to have met its end almost 25 years ago, Twin Peaks continues to surprise and thrive today. The revival will be set in the present, acknowledging the amount of time that has passed and the previous goings on of the fictional Washington town. The cast has yet to be revealed, but the show’s protagonist, Special Agent Dale Cooper (played by Kyle Maclachlan), is rumoured to be coming back.
We may never know who killed Laura Palmer, but we do know for sure that Twin Peaks lives on.
Two weeks ago, the celebrity nude photo hacking took the internet by storm. Now the filth has settled and the masses have been taught for the umpteenth time that people shouldn’t be shamed for bearing their body. (That so many people still don’t get that message does not bode well for the future.) As we begin to forget, perhaps too quickly, about this invasion of privacy, consider what this means for your nude snap practices.
To repeat what many others have said, you’re free to do whatever you want with your own body. Do not let this well-publicized incident deter you from taking pictures but it’s important to make sure it is what you really want. There are many good reasons for taking a nude photo – as a means for maintaining a long distance relationship comes to mind, but your significant other asking for one is not one of them. Never feel pressured to take a naked picture. While these are tough waters to navigate as it may involve rejecting someone you love, these pictures are too intimate and powerful for them to be given out due to pressure.
So you’ve decided that you want to send this nude pic. The next thing to keep in mind is extra precautions you should take. While it shouldn’t be something you should be concerned about, these photo leaks have repeatedly proven that the world is filled with turds disguised as normal human beings. I’m hopeful that one day these people come to their senses, but for the time being, encrypt your files and set up strong unique passwords. Apple also has a nifty feature that requires a two-step security check for another device to access your account.
While I’m sure your nudes, in which your lips are pursed and your body is contorted for optimal sexiness, are so smoking hot that they should always be followed by flame emojis, the truth is that you’re no Jennifer Lawrence. There won’t be millions of perverts searching for your picture if it ever got leaked into the public and they are less likely to be leaked to begin with. There’s less risk associated with your naughty pictures, so there’s no real need to change your nude policy due to this event.
That being said, less people caring about your nude pictures also mean there are less people who care about you if they were ever leaked. You are sorely deluded if you think the FBI will open up an investigation for you if your pictures got out. This is not to say that you are responsible for what happens in the event that your picture makes its rounds in your social circle, but simply that what follows will likely take a big toll on you – and there’ll be less help than you expect.
Ultimately, nudies are such a strange and vulnerable form of self-expression in modern courtship that it would be a shame if anyone stopped because of this recent leak. Take these tips into consideration and continue to snap away in front of your washroom mirror. Just stop using that awful flash, it’s distracting from your good-good.
Brittany Marlatt
The Silhouette
Tragedy struck many on the evening of Aug. 25, as millions of people in North America caught sight, even mere glimpses, of twerking, grinding and other feigned sexual acts.
Within minutes, social media outlets began to blow up as appalled viewers criticized Miley Cyrus’ controversial performance with Robin Thicke. Both millionaires took the stage with what was judged to be obscene gestures and questionable attire. For weeks this performance outshone headlines such as “Obama weighs possible military response,” “Hurricane Irene heads toward land,” and “Random shooting spree in New York.” All of these issues seemed to slip past us as we stressed and wondered about the pop princess’s downward spiral.
Why are we so numb to the issues impacting not only ourselves, but millions of people fighting every day for survival? Pop culture has worked its way into newspapers, news stations, radio, magazines, film and television. It can be found in curriculums, where educators lead discussions on current events and issues. It can be found on billboards, buses and social networks. Our lives are being consumed with “who wore it best?” “fashion don’ts,” and many more pointless discussions. It seems that people are shying away from what is really important.
I ask that you pull yourself out of pop culture and dive into the social and economical crises across the globe. Issues like militia invasions, poor labour conditions and the stripping of human rights need your awareness and engagement. Take a look around you and see what many have fought for you to have. Take a minute to think about the innocent people of Syria who may surely perish at the U.S.’s “humanitarian” bombs. I ask that you take a minute to think about the people of Guatemala who have had land stolen from them so the Canadian and US mining companies may collect their gold. I ask that you take a minute and ask yourself, who is fighting for them?
It is great that we have privileges such as forms of entertainment and great that we may enjoy them, but it also important that we acknowledge the individuals who fought for such freedom. Many of us essentially have all our needs at our fingertips and maybe even more, but for every extra we have, someone out there lacks a basic need. They lack shelter, food, water and equality.
Around us are many opportunities to get involved and simply become educated about the situations occurring around the globe. Most importantly, being educated is a necessary start. We play an important part in most of these issues and can become an even larger part if we actively participate. So let us unplug from pop culture and get plugged into the world around us.
For the past several weeks, my Facebook newsfeed has included at least one status, link, or photo about Miley Cyrus and/or Robin Thicke. People have had a lot to say about these two. There were the people who found “Blurred Lines” offensive, and the people who didn’t know what the big deal was. There were hilarious parodies, disturbing photomontages, and impassioned talk about rape culture. There were the people who analyzed Miley’s performance and then the people who analyzed these analyses. The conversation permeated all forms of social media, classroom walls, and conversations with friends and coworkers – it was simply everywhere. I learned what it meant to “twerk.” I learned that people do not like Miley’s tongue. I learned that Robin Thicke is married with kids. I learned interesting, informative debates about cultural appropriation, along with meaningful insights about how art develops from the blending of different cultures.
I hadn’t watched the MTV awards and I hadn’t heard “Blurred Lines” until sometime in early September.
That’s not to say that I have anything against pop culture. In fact, I seem to defend it more often than criticize it. I like to listen to Katy Perry when I work out and I know all the words to most Eminem songs. There are many things to enjoy about popular culture. Most of our “highbrow” entertainment was popular culture at some point. Like Shakespeare. Or Mozart. Or Mark Twain. And no one can justly reject The Beatles, who once had their faces on enough merchandise to clothe and house a small family.
And the recent explosion of Miley and Rob proved two things. First, that popular culture is inescapable. No matter how indie your films, how alternative your rock, and how far you hide and hate the Britneys and Madonnas – you can’t avoid it. It will find its way into your conversations and into your subconscious. If you go to stores or on the computer, then it is pretty much inevitable that it will affect your life in some way. And for this reason alone, we can’t discount it. The fact is that pop culture is produced to be as immediately accessible as possible, so chances are that we will all consume it in one way or another. Second, popular culture reflects the culture – the ideas, the beliefs, the stereotypes, the fears – of the moment. Miley twerks, and this expresses something meaningful about women, about our bodies, about black people. Robin rhymes “hug” and “fuck,” and this too reflects something disturbing about how our society deals with the body, with power and with sex. So again, we cannot discount it.
But I also believe that while they may reveal valuable insights about our culture, there really are more important things to also pay close attention to. I know it’s a tired argument. But there is so much fantastic, poetic, wonderful, moving art available out there, even just around the corner. Pop culture is not usually designed to make us think or feel particularly deeply. They are often the television shows that we can watch while doing five other things, or the music and the movies that are entertaining but that don’t trouble us with messy thoughts. It is not designed to change our lives; it is designed to make us spend as much money as possible. I admit that it can enjoyable, but the magnitude of the obsession with Miley and Rob was unnecessary. There needs to be balance.
We should always try to think at least a little critically about the pop culture we consume. I don’t object to dancing to “Blurred Lines” and I don’t think that after said dance we should go home and write an academic paper on it. But I think with every top-40 song, with every Hollywood film, and every passing television show that we watch, it’s important, maybe life changing, to be active in our consumption rather than passive. Easier said than done. I am regularly guilty of being a passive consumer. But I really do want to make more of an effort to wonder about how people are represented, to compare it to other art forms by other kinds of artists, and to object, at least in my mind, to some of the things that are done and said and sung.