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!

Stereotyping From Within The Subculture And Inclusivity: Part 3 - Pale Is Not The Only Aesthetic

This one is so basic that I'm really annoyed that I have to even mention this, but you don't have to be as pale as paper to be a Goth. The very fact that there is this sort of notion within the subculture at all makes me irritated. 

I am very much the super-pale Goth stereotype. I am naturally very pale, and in the Goth subculture was very grateful to find a place where the same pallor that made me the object of ridicule ("oi! Vampire!" and that was even before I turned Goth!) and perpetual inquiries after my health ("Are you feeling alright? You look awfully pale...") and suggestions of good fake tans (No thank-you, I am quite happy looking the way I do) it was nice to find somewhere where this was not just accepted but seen as ideal of beauty. As such it can be easy to loose sight that other people within the community with darker skin ranging from more tanned European skin tones to very dark skin from African and Australasian/Pacific ancestry can feel like the community isn't as supportive of them. 

There is a VERY good article on this at Coilhouse which I think all readers of this article should read ::here::

The usual excuse I hear is that pale skin is better for the cool-colours and monochrome aesthetic. Yes, unnaturally pale people are closer to monochrome, even more so if they actually paint their faces white, and thus fit the cool-colours only palette, but since when has this been the only way to achieve a Gothic aesthetic? And this is coming from one of those naturally ridiculously pale people; I have no necessity to think up what sort of colours co-ordinate with warmer and darker skin tones but I can still do so without much effort; all black works with everything, for a start. Goths who say it's impossible for dark skinned and warm-skin-toned people to do Goth properly either have no imagination for makeup or fashion or are just trying disguise their racism or silliness (because more tanned Goths of European ancestry get this nonsense too). Heck, if we can have people who are tattooed rainbow colours being acceptable Goths despite definitely falling out of the 'monochrome and cool colours only' bracket, then we can certainly dismiss the argument of "but warm tones aren't Goth!!". Also -what about all the Goths with red, auburn and other warm-toned hair (red, auburn and copper being particularly Pre-Raphaelite and particularly Steampunk related at the moment). 

Beyond the aesthetic argument, why should not being pale be any barrier to participation in the subculture? Goth is a vast and varied subculture, anyone who likes the music, the culture and the fashion can join - no restrictions on skin tone, race, ethnicity, religion or locale, because none of these things are even vaguely criteria for what Goth is. Go read my article ::What IS Goth?:: and see if I mention on there "must be as pale as Death's bleached skull"  - hint: I don't. 

This may seem like shocking news to some, but the subculture has been world-wide for years and there are even Goths in the Middle East and South America (I've seen the photographs from World Goth Day club nights in Brasilia - there were some awesome outfits going on there, and everyone looks like they had a lot of fun!). The scene has its own local characteristics wherever it sprouts, but it always has the same roots. An appreciation for the macabre is a part of human nature - there have been people with a dark wardrobe and appreciation for macabre beauty for a long time throughout history, long before the Goth subculture ever appeared and there are eccentric and darkly minded people all over the world. In the age of the internet and mass globally-distributed media it's not surprising that the subculture has spread as people find there's an entire subculture for people whose taste for the darker things might get them ostracised from mainstream society, whether that's in England or Turkey or Japan or America or Sweden or South Africa or anywhere else, and connect with like-minded individuals. This is a good thing and the diversity of input into the subculture stops it going stale. 

Talking of stale, I feel like there's a certain staleness in Gothic imagery and photographs (and remember that those photographs are aspirational material for many Goths) and they include an awful lot of very pale people, often women, looking undead in lovely anachronistic outfits, probably in a graveyard, in a creepy forest or in front of a cathedral - it's gorgeous, it's surely beautiful, and I am certainly a fan, but it is not the ONLY way to do Goth; it's not Dracula's wives or bust. I'm sure a lot of this is artistic laziness instead of deliberate racism; it's easier to just recycle the same imagery that's been around since  pre-Raphaelite depictions of Ophelia and probably before than come up with something completely new (they were old by the time of Hammer horror movies and The Addams and Munsters); it is a visual language so often repeated that we all know it like the words to a familiar song, but we can do so much more than that, and it is about time we stepped up to the plate and started embracing a more diverse set of Gothic imagery. 

There is no reason why post-apocalyptic Goths have to be pale; after all I'm sure even the palest people will develop tans after the sunscreen factories get nuked and radioactive killer zombies tear holes in your parasols. There's no good reason why vampires have to be a particularly pale version of European (anyone seen the Blade movies? Ok, just the first one?). Anyone can be the ghost lurking in the shadows of a haunted house or the unfortunate person to find the ghost. Even the Gothic clichés don't have to involve only very pale people. I'm sure Goths of parent cultures other than our own will have their own ghastly folk tales and history to bring to the table of ghoulish delights, and I am fascinated to see what can be done. We've had thousands of permutations of aristocratic European vampires, haunted mostly-wooden American houses with creepy things in the basement, and black clad witches in grim and tangled forests, and while I am sure there's plenty more permutations possible and I will always enjoy these themes, our grim folk mythology isn't the only one. 

If you are a Gothic artist or photographer, or any other form of visual artist in the scene, and you find yourself mostly making images of pale (and often very slender, and often female) people, question why, and question if you can't be a bit more diverse and try something different. Heck, it would be nice to see a greater balance of images between every other gender/sex and Gothic women, as most of the images I see are of women Goths! It will probably go a long way to make Goths with a broader range of skin tones feel a lot more like a valued and equally aspirational sort of Goth. 

There is nothing wrong with being a freckled Goth or a goth with olive, chocolate or walnut skin, or a Goth with inked skin in a variety of colours put there by tattoos, or with being a very pale Goth - I'm hardly saying it's passé and ugly now! We're all Goths, and no value judgement should be put on how Goth someone is because of skin colour, ethnicity or parent culture. I really want everyone within the subculture to feel that they can be comfortable in their own skin and not under any pressure to live up to some beauty standard that expects them to be as pale as the moon (and as thin as a willow leaf.. but that is another topic for another article.) and I especially think Goth should be a haven, especially for those who experience prejudice outside of the subculture, whether that is racism, ableism, homophobia or anything else, not to mention that our unusual tastes and interests can often make us outcasts to a degree at the best of times. 

I do not want to see Goth turn into something with the same rot as mainstream culture, just with a darker aesthetic, and I do sometimes worry that is starting to happen. I get worried when I see Goth adopting narrow standards of beauty, because it is both contrary to what I feel are the principles of Goth and something that causes, or is at least contributory to a lot of body-image and self-esteem issues in mainstream society, especially when these standards of beauty go from being what the fashion media are looking for in models to something the nastier people in society use to measure each other and judge. 

From what I've seen of old photographs from the '80s and '90s, there were quite a few people with a broad range of skin-tones and ethnicities in the scene. I don't want to hear any more reports of Goths with darker skins or from non-European ethnicities not being accepted as "proper Goths" (who put you in charge of deciding that?) or having their Gothic credibility questioned. If they are at the Goth club, wearing the same kind of clothes as you, and dancing to the same music as you, what gives you the right to question the legitimacy of them being there? Chances are they are there for the exact same reasons as everyone else at the Goth club, or spooky picnic, or internet forum about why Siouxsie Sioux is a wonderful singer or any other place where Goths interact socially. 

If you are still not convinced, then go visit some wonderful bloggers like ::Madame Mari Mortem:: and Colour Me Goth who are very damn Goth indeed. If that does not satisfy, have a look around Tumblr too.  

Dear Goth community as a whole, please stop making up excuses to be exclusionary; you are making Goth look bad, giving credence to the terribly mis-informed people who think we're Neo-Nazis, and making people who can contribute to the Goth scene just as much as anyone else feel left out. 

Stereotyping From Within The Subculture And Inclusivity: Part 1 - Financial Snobbery.

Firstly, happy Independence Day to my American readership. Have fun, enjoy barbecues and pyrotechnics if you are into that sort of thing!

I was reading ::this:: post by Fee over at 'An Honest Drug' and the posts she linked to - Nicolette Mason writing on IFB ::here:: it got me thinking about inclusivity in the Goth subculture in general, and about how I think certain stereotypes are being perpetuated within the online Gothic community. I think how Goth represents itself online is very important as a lot of Goths, especially younger Goths who don't have access to the clubs and gigs of the adult Goth scene, rely on the internet for a connection to the broader Goth scene.

I am going to try and avoid simply repeating what has already been said about those who blog commercially having various pressures around them to adopt mainstream values and deviate from their image (basically, a pressure to 'sell out' to some degree, like with any creative industry) partly because it is too general for the audience of this blog and my interests, and partly because I simply don't like repeating what others can say better.  

I have tried to debunk mostly stereotypes imposed on Goth from the outside, such as Goths not being a subculture of depression (to be found at ::this:: post) and Goth not being an inherently middle-class subculture (to be found at  ::this:: post) to my being an example of the fact that Goths are not all teenagers and we do grow up and get proper jobs while remaining alternative. What I have not spent much attention to, though, are the stereotypes perpetuated within the subculture.

The first one I would like to debunk is that you have to spend lots of money on clothes, trinkets and generally applying the Goth aesthetic to your entire lifestyle, and that the flashier, more ornate clothes you have and the amount of times you can go to Gothic festivals (especially if you're travelling across Europe and America to go to them) can somehow dictate how Goth you are. I have mentioned this tangentially in various past posts about being a Goth on a budget. (::Here::, ::here:: and ::here::, for example) but you do not need to be rich to be Goth any more than you need to come from a middle-class background or be middle-class (as these are all tied to socio-economic status).  This is basic snobbery, and Goth is not run by the Goth oligarchy, because Goth has no leaders.

I am tackling this first, because as followers of my blog may well know, I am not very well off - my job is part-time and barely covers the rent, and to contribute towards utilities, taxes and bills I have to busk in my local city (followers of the Domesticated Goth page on FaceBook will know I do this). Currently money is very tight, and as I have mentioned before, I may well have some big life changes ahead, and I am not feeling that financially secure at the moment. I certainly feel a little left out when I see the beautiful gowns from WGT showcased on Viona Art, for example, or when I get the newsletters and FaceBook updates from my favourite alternative craftspeople and sellers and would like to purchase their wares and know that I can't even afford the sale items right now.

Nobody has been obviously and outwardly snobbish towards me, but I can't help but feel that I and my Gothy endeavours get more than slightly less attention than that of some of my wealthier comrades in Goth who get photographed seemingly endlessly in their finery at festivals, seem to be constantly updating their blogs and FB feeds with haul posts and product reviews and always seem to be slightly better dressed and slightly fancier than I can be. I cannot be honest without saying that I am a tad jealous, and I don't like being a jealous person, or feeling like there's a climate within the community that is contributing towards that jealousy.

I think it is important for me, and for other Goths not to get too caught up in this sort of materialism and commercialisation of the subculture. Independent craftspeople are certainly the lifeblood of the subculture, and buying their wares is certainly far better than buying mass-market stuff aimed at our demographic by large businesses who are not part of the subculture and don't care about it, but we shouldn't judge each other or ourselves on how much we buy, regardless of where those things come from. Your spending power is not a mark of dedication to the subculture. In some ways, I guess the percentage of one's income spent on the subculture could be seen as mark of dedication, as it shows the level of investment of one's resources, but compared to the time spent on and within the subculture, and one's contribution to it, even that sort of monetary marker is largely irrelevant.

Another factor is that having more money allows for a more polished internet presence - better quality photographs taken on cameras rather than poor-resolution phone cams (like on my old smart-phone), a larger wardrobe of more expensive and fancy clothes, and often less pressures on time for those who earn enough from one job to not be running about between various sources of income, etc. Some have even paid graphic designers and professional photographers, etc.

If you have money it is easier to produce higher quality content, but it is not the only way. I am lucky in that I can get Raven to photograph me sometimes, and the difference between his work, even on an off day, and my best selfies is staggering.  I know a little about web-design, and sometimes have days where I can spend days tweaking the Domesticated page, so I hope that my blog here is good from a design perspective (although comments and critique on this are always appreciated, and I know I need to update both the photo gallery and the site map) so while I don't have money to spend on high-end cameras, and while I'm not paid to model, I still have a few good images here and a relatively aesthetically pleasing blog.

Yes, this might attract readers, but it is the product of handwork, careful investment and a lot of hours, and not of a large budget, and as I have mentioned in my various posts on being Goth on a budget, there are plenty of ways to apply "time and effort" as a way to get a polished Gothic lifestyle in real life, and not just the internet, and as I would like to re-iterate, I think it is time and effort that prove real dedication the subculture, not how much one spends on it. There are many teens who have gone through a Goth phase that has not lasted who amassed lovely collections of Goth things because their parents bought them these things - and while there is nothing wrong with Goth being a transient phase for some, and I am not bitter towards those whose parents could buy them such things, to them Goth was not going to be a factor in the rest of their lives. I am quite grateful for the existence of these people, for when they leave Goth often they sell their things cheaply on eBay or donate them to charity, and I then end up with them at a price I can afford!

As Goth is a subculture with many of its own values being outside of the parent cultures, yet being influenced by them, we should try and be self-aware of how much we adopt the more negative values of the parent cultures when, in having our own subculture, we have greater freedom to adopt our own. Any kind of materialistic snobbery is something I think we should avoid, especially when younger Goths feel like they cannot participate because they cannot buy or have bought for them elaborate clothes and masses of black candles.

Yes, the dark and macabre have become more commercial and mainstream, and in some ways this is a sign that we are gradually becoming more acceptable to the mainstream (that itself is another topic for debate) but just because these things are available does not mean we have to buy them, and it does not mean that our subculture should stray too far from its Punk, working-class roots, and from the DIY attitude that spawned a lot of it. Early Goths may have had to be resourceful and thrift-shopping DIY-ers out of necessity, but even if we have everything from Hot Topic to Lip Service and Hell Bunny via Hysteria Machine, ::Kambriel:: and ::Merimask:: but that does not mean that the resourcefulness and craft skills of early Goths are not things to embrace and inherently worthwhile and valuable. I admire a Goth (or Lolita, or whatever) who can sew their own finery more than one who can simply buy it.  

I have noticed that DIY and crafting blogs tend to be especially popular if they have budget projects, and many of those are written by people who DIY due to financial constraints, so while the bloggers must have at least access to the internet (although that could be a friend's internet or library/municipal internet access), there is a space for poorer bloggers in the Goth blogosphere and I am glad when people are reasonably open about being on a budget, because I think it makes other poorer Goths feel like they are still part of the subculture and they're not alone or shameful because of this. Class and wealth is a HUGE divide in the wider world, and an insidious part of many other prejudices, and I feel like it is the sort of insidious thing I do NOT want to see take hold within our subculture.

An aside: I tend to avoid discussing politics and on my blog because it is off-topic and could easily derail what I am trying to do here, but the financial and resource inequality of our world is something that makes me vastly angry, and how all sorts of other prejudices are spread by those who wish to perpetuate that inequality for their own gain. I see too much "divide and conquer" perpetrated by those that see it as a means to profit and power, and too much advertising fosters a sense of self loathing to create a market for products that remedy made-up flaws.

We should be proud of our own creations, show-case them on our blogs, and when we see other Goths online and in real life, use their resourcefulness, ingenuity and creative skills to be fabulous and interesting, mention that - not in a patronising way, of course - because it is the sort of positive thing that ought to be reinforced and often the sort of thing that is quite admirable in many ways. I know I do my best to be a resourceful and creative Goth and to help others with that, but there are many who out-do me by far. Remember that Goth came from Punk, and that poverty is not shameful for the poor  -especially in a world where many countries have gone into recession in the last 5 years and where so many people have fallen beneath the poverty line. The only people who should be ashamed of poverty are those in power, both financial and governmental, that have allowed and encouraged such a world of inequity. 

You do not need a huge wardrobe of the fanciest anachronistic Goth clothes, three pairs of New Rock boots for every season, every Goth album ever on MP3, CD and vinyl, and to go to every club night and festival in a thousand mile radius to be a 'proper Goth'. You just need to love what is macabre, dress spooky, love some music from a more sombre sort of rock and see the beauty in darkness - spending power is irrelevant.