Scene Drama

I was just reading ::this:: post by The Everyday Goth, and I thoroughly recommend it - especially if you are a younger Goth in your teens, and are first encountering drama within any scene or subculture. I wrote a fairly long comment on the article, and I think article struck a chord with me. I am not going to repeat what The Everyday Goth has already said; I agree with all the advice she has given and certainly think it is good advice to follow. 

My first observation on scene drama is that there appears to be two kinds of drama - the kind where there is no underlying actual problem other than a person who likes to create drama, and people deliberately wanting drama are creating a storm in a tea cup over nothing much, and the other kind where whatever the underlying argument is, feelings run deep and the actual issue needs to be resolved at some point for it to stop continually resurfacing. 

The first type can be ridden out, and with careful observation those who are either starting or perpetuating the drama for their amusement or for some silly convoluted social politics will be evident, so you can know to avoid those people and their drama. This sort of drama is usually either entirely fabricated with the use of rumours and gossip, or a deliberate escalation of what really ought to be a minor and private matter. A key sign with this sort of drama, and those who start it is that it makes private disagreements as public as possible - people involved will post their personal fallings-out on social media, on forums, and tell everyone who will listen, provide you with screen-caps of sections of privately messaged conversation to "prove" who is in the right, and try and get as many people as possible to join in with the airing of grievances. Whether this is done to deliberately damage someone's reputation or simply because the person in question is wanting to be the centre of attention, similar methods are used, and the dispute being aired is either nonsense or something minor that has been inflated, and is absolutely not worth getting involved in - getting involved will only make matters worse, and is best ignored and left to die of attention starvation. 

The second type is trickier, especially when it is an issue that actually involves the local scene instead of just an issue affecting the personal lives of certain members - say an argument over the management/mismanagement of club nights or the organisation of an event or some such (for example there's been big drama recently in the Lolita community over how certain large Lolita events in America were run, with online petitions being written, and people in communities world-wide getting involved if even as distant commentators). These sorts of dramas are not empty, and while people's personal grievances often get dragged into them, there is usually a larger underlying issue. 

Sometimes it is worth getting involved to get the issue solved, but it has to be done in a way that is constructive rather than causes a rift. These sorts of issues are certainly where The Everyday Goth's advice of picking your battles is important, and knowing where the boundaries are between constructive disagreement and causing a vicious schism. Certainly, if you feel there is a real issue in your community, do what you can to further things, but make sure your behaviour in trying to achieve results does not degenerate to petty tactics. I often see people who think they are campaigning on the side of some variant on righteousness acting in ways that really are not right at all. If there is a problem in your Goth, Lolita or similar community, it needs resolving so that you are a stronger and more cohesive group, not becoming the starting point for a major and divisive issue; divisions in the community will weaken it, will make it harder for people to collaborate and organise things, and generally more difficult for any form of progress to be made, whether it relates to the issue that caused the division or not.

I should not have to really write this guide to good conduct, but as these issues constantly resurface, and often times those perpetuating them seem like perhaps they really have lost touch with what is reasonable in their endeavours rather than are simply nasty people, here it is:

Don't result to personal insults, threats or wishing misfortune on people. It is incredibly childish. I work at a primary school and this is literally the sort of behaviour I sometimes witness in the playground. If you are older than 13, you have no excuse to be acting like this, and even if you are younger than that, you should be learning to make better choices. If I expect better conduct from a child at primary school than what you are doing, you have really, really, stooped low. "You are lower than scum" is just a more elaborate way of saying "You're a poop-head" and no less childish. 

No giant internet battles/flame wars! This is where the entire forum, or even a large section of the online community for a scene, are arguing over the internet with each other. We probably all have better things to spend that time on in our offline lives! Sometimes people on the internet are wrong, and you do not have to make it your personal mission to correct every wrong person. 

No getting an e-posse on side to troll and harass the opposition. It is tempting to tell all your friends about how bad something is and urge them to take action, but be careful about who you are talking to. There are those people who, on hearing about an issue, will take time to look at both sides of the problem, and consider their stance - and only then take action, and if so, will do so with reasoned arguments if participating in discussion, or maybe with signing a petition if it is a big issue, or perhaps write an article on their position that is not vindictive or denegrating the opposition. There are also those who will only have listened to, or understood, half of what you have told them, have no interest in the other side of the matter, jump to conclusions, act purely on a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than take time to look into things more deeply, and will immediately start with the hateful words and the "I hope you die in a fire" type comments. Think before you tell people things; if a person falls into the second category, telling them may unwittingly escalate things. If you are deliberately inciting the second category of people, that is deliberately provoking drama and it is a) counterproductive to your cause and b) very petty. 

No screaming matches. If you have got to the point where you are actually face-to-face yelling at each other, you have both lost. No progress can be made when emotions are running that high and people are too hurt and too angry to think straight. At this point it is better to walk away and let somebody else take on the role of trying to fix the issue. If it has got as far as a real life argument, then both people arguing are probably very firmly fixed in their perspective, and it is often a complete waste of time arguing with them, especially as the more emotionally attached someone is to an issue, the more likely they are to disregard any reason or evidence that goes counter to their stance. 

Certainly no attempts at trying to bring harsh real-world problems onto those you disagree with. This means no doxxing, no telling people's employers or similar institutions with authority over them that after hours they are goths/fetishists/Pagans/whatever misunderstood group, etc. (something similar happened to me when I was a teen about me being Pagan...). I have even seen petitions to have people fired from their jobs where the issue has absolutely no relation to their employment. Those who start these actions are often being vindictive at worst, or at best hugely misguided in an "the ends justify the means" attempt to improve things, and those who join in to support these actions need to thoroughly consider how destructive the rammification of these actions are. Sometimes the ends do not justify the means, and it is real people being hurt at the other side of a computer screen. 

If there is a real issue in your community that needs to be addressed, try and resolve it like mature adults with discussions, compromises, and simply refusing to participate in events you don't think are run right, or if you think you could do better, actually DOING that. The phrase "I could do better" often crops up in complaints about club nights, amongst the perennial complaints about club nights "the music selection is awful! The venue is awful! The timing is awful! I could do better!!" - but rarely does anyone actually try and do better, because they are just wanting to moan, and neither do they request better tunes, actually contact anyone about improvements to the venue ("the toilet door's broken, it's been that way for years" - so has anyone told the management about this? Has anyone contacted the venue owners? Has anyone made a proper complaint? Maybe even volunteered to fix it?) or suggest better dates - for example, if a club night is mainly patronised by students, it is probably best to host a summer event AFTER university exams are over, so those running the club night need to know when that is. Communicate issues clearly, speak up to those who have the power to change things, and if you honestly think you can do better, have a go; maybe you could be the start of something good!

Sophie Lancaster: Six Years On

Six years ago, on August 24 2007, Sophie Lancaster was murdered for looking different. 

I have posted before about who Sophie Lancaster was, and what happened to her. It was a horrible and evil thing, and that is not what I want to focus on here. I want to focus on what has changed and what the S.O.P.H.I.E foundation set up in her memory has done to make at least the UK a better place for visibly Alternative people like myself. I think that setting up the S.O.P.H.I.E project was probably one of the best things that could be done in her memory. Hopefully through their work, the likelihood of such an attack happening again will decrease. In February 2014, the staged version of Black Roses by Simon Armitage will be playing at the Royal Exchange in Manchester. I am not local, too far North in the Highlands of Scotland, but I suggest that those Goths and alternative people in Manchester show their support. Quite a few creative endeavours have been inspired by Sophie, which reminds me of the songs written in memory and honour of murdered Texan punk Brian Deneke.  

Please watch this short film; it's very sad, and I always cry when I watch it, but I think it is important to see. This is the official Dark Angel video. It is beautifully illustrated and animated. I will say to more sensitive readers/viewers, that it does deal with some dark and violent material, and might be quite upsetting. For those who are of a sturdier disposition, though, I think it is definitely important viewing. 

This year, in Manchester, attacks based on subcultural affiliation have been recognised under the same hate-crime legislation as attacks based on things like religion. I think this is an important step because while some hatred types are about things a person cannot choose (like skin colour, disability, sexual orientation where they are from, etc.) some are about lifestyle choices (wearing non-traditionally gendered clothes, symbols of choice of religion, etc.) which are important to that person being true to their inner selves and being outwardly Goth or whatnot is as important to many as those other choices. It might be just clothes, but is also an outward representation and show of affiliation to the subculture we belong and our inner selves, and heck, I feel like I am dressed up as someone else when I am NOT wearing my Goth clothes. I really hope that this is adopted nation wide. I have written about this topic at greater length ::here:: in a full-length blog-post. 

Their work with schools, and the creation of ::this:: pack including the Sophie Game, and a DVD of the video above,  that gives a tangible resource for teens to learn about tolerance for those who are different is probably my favourite contribution, because it focuses on the intolerance that is the cause underneath the aggression and harassment on the streets. Most of the harassment I have had, and undoubtedly the worst instances, were perpetrated by teens, and not just by my peers while I was a teen myself. I have been harassed by gangs of teenage boys who are otherwise complete strangers to me right up to a couple of months ago. It is an important demographic to target, and from the responses I have read on the S.O.P.H.I.E page, many teenagers have found both Mrs. Lancaster's talks to be very moving, and the work they have done in school based on the packs to be educational. I completely encourage the education of young people about prejudice against alternative types, especially as it is often in their teen years when people will experiment with joining various subcultures, that it was a gang of teens that murdered Sophie Lancaster. 

Goths will always be outsiders, because we like things that most people don't, and come from a perspective that is often radically different (we tend to go "cool!" at what others go "eek!" over.), but that does not mean we should be outcasts and the victims of hatred. We might not want to join the mainstream, but that does not mean we should get abused, beaten and, in the case of Sophie Lancaster, killed. Tolerance and an acceptance of different is not a lot to ask, but sadly it is so hard to get. 

✯♥✯

The Sophie Lancaster Foundation

Stamp Out Prejudice, Hatred & Intolerance Everywhere

✯♥✯

In terms of any more can be done, I think diversity education aimed at the attitudes to difference in primary school children would be a good idea. I also think it shouldn't be up to a small charity to do these things. 

I think several primary-school aged children have written into Gothic Charm School as interested in the subculture, and I know that while I wasn't a Goth as a small child, I was gender-stereotype non-conforming and dressed pretty much as a boy, and that didn't always garner a pleasant reaction. I am not saying that young children should be taught about Goth and Punk and Lolita, etc. except in the broadest of terms - along the lines of that there are people that like wearing clothes that might look unusual and listen to a variety of kinds of music, and have unusual hobbies, and that this doesn't make them bad people, just different. I do realise that, especially with Metal, Goth and Punk, that there are aspects of those subcultures that are not age-appropriate for primary children. Goth is, after all, a subculture founded on appreciation for things that are dark, scary and morbid. What I am saying is that there should be work to prevent the basic attitudes of 'different = bad' from forming. 

Aside: There are age-appropiate versions of traditionally Gothic themes; just look at Monster High dolls and the Hotel Transylvania film, not to mention a good few of the movies Tim Burton worked on! I read 'Goosebumps' books and Point Horror, the Little Vampire and plenty of other children's books that were both spooky and age appropriate. Toned-down versions of Gothic themes do exist and there are plenty of children that enjoy them. 

Education on the existence of alternative and minority groups should not be entirely focused on specific groups, and when it is, it should run a bit deeper than festivals, landmarks, symbols, clothing and food. I remember doing a project about Pakistan, a project about China, and a project about Islam, but I know little about life in any of these cultures, and I was hardly the kind of student that didn't pay attention. I do, however, know about Chinese New Year, that the Great Wall is nearly 4,000 miles of wall, a bit about painted vehicles, that Islamabad is the capital of Pakistan, and how to wear a head-scarf in a particular way, and that having take-out for lunch is far tastier than school dinners. Instead I think there should be an emphasise on learning to appreciate difference instead of feeling threatened by it, about learning to be politely inquisitive instead of rude and assuming, about learning to differentiate between popular misinformed stereotypes and reality etc. - skills equally applicable for interacting with any group of people outside the pupil's own communities, and learning to see people as individuals rather than as members of homogenous groups and stereotypes. 

Most small children are actually quite curious anyway, and the prejudices and closed-mindedness are things they seem to (from my experience) start to pick up on around aged 7 to 9, and they pick it up from closed-minded adults around them. Sometimes even younger children pick up on this. I guess the important thing is to aim attempts to build the skills that keep them curious and open-minded about other cultures, subcultures and lifestyles and that help them to identify unpleasant stereotypes as what they are before the negative attitudes have become ingrained. While it isn't impossible, it is a lot harder to change someone's mind once they have latched onto an idea, and remedial action based on dispelling stereotypes and undoing prejudices are again generally targeted on specific groups (e.g tackling homophobia, tackling racism, tackling Islamophobia, etc.). I also understand that certain groups have historically and contemporaneously been marginalised and oppressed, and learning about these things is important too, but the world is really too diverse a place to teach about every single form of diversity individually. 

Well Done Manchester Police and S.O.P.H.I.E

If anyone needs to know the importance of this in the UK, just look up the tragic, horrific murder of Sophie Lancaster and the vicious, violent assault on her boyfriend. 

And all the other cases that have got nasty enough to hit the news. 

I was not originally going to explain the good sense of including Goths and other subcultures into this legislation. Subculture, as I have mentioned before, is a life-altering choice as great as the choice of religion, and subculture, for many, is a stronger influence on daily life than local or national culture, but having read through comments on various articles reporting this story, I will.

Now I don't think the "hate crime" legislation as it stands is right. It has this rather specific set of groups of victims, and defines the hate crime by its victim rather than the hatred within the perpetrator, and I think it could be better worded to include any baseless hatred towards a random stranger due to a difference rather than personal attack. The kind of savage thugs that attacked Sophie Lancaster are liable to target anybody isolated, different, or perceived to be weak. Yes, they are as likely to attack someone for looking foreign, non-stereotypically gendered, of an unusual religion or disabled. It is just as vile and prejudiced to attack someone on the grounds of being ginger, or looking 'geeky' or having any other visually apparent difference, or even for having the wrong accent.  These things are unlikely to ever be added to the legislation. I also think that legislation that goes to further mark the victims out as 'special' is in itself divisive. 

It is the perpetrator that is more evil for being judgemental and prejudiced as well as violent, not the victim more special because they belong to a minority. 

The idea that anyone who beats up someone for being Goth or Punk or Lolita or Metal in Manchester will hopefully get penalised for their motivation and vicious intolerance of difference in the same way as the hate crimes already recognised as well as their violence is at least one good thing. This world could do with vast decrease in vicious intolerance, and the message that acting on it is wrong should go out.

I know that the hate crime legislation is partly there to promote a sense of safety amongst communities that have been traditionally the victims of institutionalised prejudice. I think the creative, self-expressive types who have formed the backbone of various subcultures (and proto-subcultures since at least the people inspired by the Pre-Raphaelites and Arts & Crafts movements) HAVE faced a certain amount of institutionalised prejudice that can best be summarised by when, at one of the primary schools I attended and before I was even vaguely Goth, I was fed up with being bullied and ostracised by my peers and got the response "well, they wouldn't pick on you if you weren't so different' as if I could suddenly change my IQ (high enough to have meant I was into secondary school things by the time I was half-way through primary), my personality (far more imaginative, I would say, than many of my peers) and my personal circumstances (terrible, and I am not explaining on the public internet). I am who I am, and I have tried being more "normal" - I couldn't deal with the stress of having to permanently act, to permanently maintain an elaborate charade of normality and the cost to my then quite fragile mental health was huge. 

Even with that, I don't think the Goth community has faced, in the UK at least, anything quite as bad as the legislated prejudices that have historically caused vast and terrible harm to people of different races and nationalities, gays, bisexuals and lesbians, transgendered people and those of non-traditional gender and gender expression, the disabled, and women. 

But that does not mean to say that we have not faced problems. 

People think I am brave because I go out of the house looking visibly Goth, as if this is some act of deliberate defiance. It isn't; I just do what everybody else does and go about my life wearing my ordinary clothes. I know my clothes look different, but that is it. I know people who adore their Gothic finery, their Lolita dresses, their cybergoth creativity, but only wear it to clubs and events and go there by car or hide under long coats. Some even only wear it at home. It's not just those who are afraid of being beaten up, or having insults yelled at them by strangers, it is those who find the stares and whispered comments, the being treated with suspicion and alarm, or as some strange curiosity rather than as a curious human. If this addition goes some way to make people feel more comfortable in public as themselves, then that at least is a good thing.