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. 

Confidence And Being Visibly Alternative In Public

I am more confident in my full Romantic Goth gear than I would be in jeans & t-shirt. 

I actually feel really uncomfortable when I'm not dressed Goth; I feel like I am wearing the costume of being somebody else. I am certainly comfortable with being alternative in public, even as obviously so as to wear long skirts, corsets, frock-coats and wigs in town.

I have seen several video and read several articles about this sort of thing, and here is my take on it.

I dress for only myself, and wear what I think is beautiful, and my tastes in clothes are far more layered, detailed, extravagant and anachronistic than most people's, and this to me is too eclectic to be formal-wear, even if the materials (like the jacquard and lace) are often thought of as too luxurious for everyday wear. For formal wear, I would wear either a dress, or a matching set.

The trick to being confident is realising that you are the ultimate judge of your own beauty, not some random stranger. You don't know the strangers by default of definition - you can't know the motivations for a passing comment; they could be complimenting you, but really think what your wearing is hideous (perfect example of this in the film 'Mean Girls') and be insulting you despite actually liking what you wear because they want to show off to their friends (<sarcasm> because insulting strangers really demonstrates how macho you are! </sarcasm>) so there's no point in taking stead in their opinions; although I think genuine compliments are fairly easily identified, and most people who make mean comments about Halloween or vampires or just shout "GOTH!" or whatever at us in the streets are doing so for the sake of being mean (because they are insecure, afraid of anything different, want to show off to the rest of their group, want to get attention etc.). Yes, some people just don't like the Goth (or other subcultural) aesthetic, but they generally don't feel the need to be publicly rude to a stranger about it, but on the other side of that, those who like your outfit may not want to publicly complement you.

Diamonds, clubs and the Ace of Hearts
Phone-cam selfie.

The only people you should listen to about your appearance are those who genuinely want to help you with it, for example friends and family and even then, you are allowed to disagree with them. My Dad is accepting of me being Goth, but actually prefers it when I wear black trousers, Doc Martens or New Rocks, a black turtle-neck, studded cuffs, etc. because he prefers a more practical aesthetic and thinks my "frilly stuff" is too busy for his tastes. I happen to disagree, and continue to wear frills when they won't get in the way. (See ::this:: post for my more practical aesthetic). Of course, sometimes friends will have a valid point and will try and broach any fashion advice politely. It's a tricky subject, and a tact minefield.

The second trick is being comfortable with your own appearance. If you feel pretty and feel comfortable, others will be more relaxed about it. The more self-conscious you are, the more you will subconsciously project that. If you really like your own appearance, then your own self-belief will shine through and you will carry yourself better and look pretty. 

If, when I look in the mirror before I go out, I look just how I want to, then I am confident to wear it in public. If something doesn't look quite right, then I will either try it and see (perhaps later in the day I will like it) if it is something minor, or simply change whatever it is that doesn't work. My reference point is my own aesthetic taste, and yes, that is inspired by other things I have seen, as nobody is truly original (only innovative). My tastes are influenced by photographs I've seen of other Goths, and people into Aristocrat, New Romantic, Lolita and other fashions, as well as high-fashion garments, costuming for stage and screen productions, works of art, historical fashions, works of fantasy etc. 

An important thing is being able to distinguish art from reality - high-concept fashion shoots are art, an inspiration, not a reflection of real life, and even a lot of other photographs have been improved with the aid of a computer, even if it is only to tweak the lighting, colour-balance, contrast, etc. and models tend to try and pose in flattering ways. Nobody looks like a perfect photograph all the time, not even professional models. Some people are highly photogenic, but even they have their 'derpy' moments and their off-days. 

I pay attention to the small details; for example having makeup-swirls that compliment the designs on my clothes, keeping strictly to a limited colour palette, carefully coordinating glove length to sleeve length and hosiery to skirt/trousers and making sure that the shoes and handbag compliment each other. I am picky about which jewellery I am wearing, which hair accessories, how I have styled my hair, and my wig. Once I know I have every small detail just how I like them, I feel pretty - but I am a perfectionist, and not everyone cares about that level of detail. Personally, I feel that it is an important part of being stylish and well coordinated, but some people revel in the deliberately clashing, or wear things that don't go simply because one of the items is of too much sentimental value to take off, or it just simply is not their priority.

If such ways of paying attention to detail make you feel more confident in your appearance, then do them, but don't agonise too much, though - you shouldn't end feeling like you just can't get close enough to perfection to go out, however many times you re-tie your bows, whatever necklace you wear, however many times you re-do your makeup, or whatever you do your hair or whatever. Remember, nobody is perfect, and it isn't perfection you should be aiming at. If you see a photograph that looks perfect, chances are it is a) a studio set up and b) a digitally altered image - and if you get too flawless, it can actually be uncanny and inhuman (which is fine if you want to look like a living doll, a vampire or a robot, but not so good if that is not your thing). Also, some of my prettiest outfits have come together out of whatever wasn't in the laundry. Sometimes over-planning can make me, and therefore probably others, look fussy and too much like I'm in a costume or going to a specific event or in a costume.

Also remember that really fancy wardrobes take time to assemble; I mentioned this in ::this:: previous post. Sometimes it can be a while before you have a whole outfit to wear - just be patient, keep saving/sewing/thrifting, and you will have all the parts. It doesn't mean you look ugly without the whole outfit, just that you haven't got what you want yet. Of course, some things just don't work without the rest matching; for example a fancy Victorian blouse can look a bit out of place with ordinary skirts and trousers, but  if you buy things in stages you can look quite nice, and gradually become more ornate/unusual.

If you are wanting to wear something particularly fancy out (like corsets, petticoats under skirts, hooped skirts, really high platform boots, trailing skirts, wigs, fancy headdresses, etc.) then wear them at home first; some of these things are going to feel strange, perhaps slightly uncomfortable, when you first wear them, and you will, with some, need to adapt to moving slightly differently because of restricted movement, altered balance, or increased size (large skirts catching on things, knocking things over, catching antlers or headdresses on door-frames, being taller in really high boots, etc.). Until you feel 'naturalised' and comfortable in those garments. If you are doing something that radically alters your appearance, then it might take some time for you to get used to your own new appearance! This has happened when I have had radically different hair-cuts or bought wigs; re-framing my face can make it look so different that I hardly recognise myself. Again, getting used to yourself looking different in your own home can help build confidence for wearing it outside.

Once you are used to wearing things at home, wearing unusual clothes with other eccentrically dressed people can be a good stepping point. Some people are never confident to be the only unusually dressed person. I am confident enough to be different in public but on my own, yet I still feel more comfortable when there's at least one more Gothy or frilly type person with me. You might actually stand out more as a group, but you are also not having to take all the attention on your own.

Most of all, remember that there is nothing immoral about choosing to go outside looking different. There IS something immoral about trying to make others feel bad.

Yes, you WILL garner attention if you look very differently, and some people will want to ask curious questions or even photographs. If you are too busy to answer, stop for photographs, or suchlike, you are allowed to politely decline. If people are rude to you, more than likely they are looking to get a reaction, either out of some kind of sadism or because they want attention; just don't give that to them. If you are upset (and sometimes even I get upset when people are rude, especially if I am having a bad day anyway) don't show it to them. Go somewhere else, somewhere you feel comfortable, talk to someone about the negative experience (I personally rant to my other Gothy friends, who have had similar experiences), and do something that cheers you up (for me, I like sitting quietly somewhere green, so I will go sit in the park, or the meadow, or take a walk in the woods if I am really upset about anything.). 

Also, if you get a proper compliment (at least one that's not obviously a backhanded insult, sarcastic, or a patronising attempt to humour you - yes, I'm a suspicious person.), take note of it. I get more compliments than insults. It's a really nice feeling to get a genuine (or at least hopefully genuine compliment) from a stranger, and sometimes I get more lengthy positive interactions based initially on my outfits. Personally, if another alternative type compliments me, I am especially happy, because I think it is more likely that they're genuinely being nice or curious and less likely to be treating me like an interactive zoo animal, and because I like getting a compliment from people who share my tastes to some degree; I feel that it means I am doing a good job of working within that style.

With more neutral responses, I notice that sometimes people stare and do more discrete things like mutter to their friends, but as I can't tell whether that is positive or negative, and isn't really impacting on me, I ignore it. I am also not the best at reading people unless I am paying very good attention to them, and still have trouble even then, so I am also oblivious to a lot of more subtle and private reactions.

The public reaction to you will be different depending on the local demographics. Since I moved to Scotland, my compliment to insult ratio has been pretty good - I get a lot more people telling me I look nice, especially older people! I think because I prefer an anachronistic style that is inspired by funereal elegance rather than a punky style with ripped fishnets and revealing clothes (although I do wear those on occasion) that older women of a more conservative background like what I am wearing as it is feminine, modest, elegant, detailed, etc. If I am wearing fishnets and platform boots and a really short skirt or hotpants, with lots of spikes, I generally get more advances from men (and sometimes women), but fewer compliments that aren't the opening to flirtation. Oddly enough, when I have been in major cities in southern English cities, the number of insults (usually from gangs of teenage boys, young men and drunks) was much higher than the number of compliments, despite Goths being far more prevalent. There are some places where it can be downright dangerous to stand out too much, and especially to wear certain clothes - take care in areas you know to be less than safe, and tone it down if you have to. Yes, bad things can happen anywhere, but some places do harbour greater risks than others.

Lastly, in the case of extended interaction, some people have certain prejudices about various subcultures - I am talking about "Goth girls are easy sluts" and "Goths are all Satanists and devil-worshippers" and "Goths are suicidal or homicidal lunatics" and "Goths think they are vampires" other misinformed and dangerous rubbish. If you join a subculture and wear that subculture's signifiers in public, be aware that there are prejudices, and people may act on them. Try to politely correct misinformation, don't play into the negative stereotypes, and generally, be polite and sensible. Sadly, there will be times when even if you are the nicest person, others will react badly on the grounds of things they think they know about 'your kind'. That sort of thing is highly situational, but read through the experiences of others, sites like Gothic Charm School, and try to handle things in as calm and rational a manner as possible, but I know that this can be hard when people are being really horrible and irrational to you. 

Generally though, if you are a polite and sensible person, people will judge you on your actions rather than your appearances, although they may still be a tad nervous and scrutinise you more closely. Often, if you give a good impression and are polite and friendly, they will realise that their misgivings were unfounded.

Basically, there are four main points to being confident in alternative clothes in public: 
✯You are the ultimate judge of whether or not you look nice, not others. 

✯If you feel comfortable in your clothes, you will come over better. Get used to things in your own space if you need to first. 

✯Reactions vary between places - a good indication of how they are more about the person reacting than the person being reacted to!

✯There is nothing immoral or wrong about different. 

Go out there beautiful! Wear whatever you want to wear - whether you want to be a Sweet Lolita or the darkest Goth, do it. Sometimes confidence takes time to build, but it is worth it.

Feminism and Anti-Trans Sentiment

After a certain rant published in the Observer, there has been a flare-up of what is seen to be an animosity between transwomen and feminists (as if these two groups can be lumped into two monolithic rivals...), stemming from outright transphobic sentiment from feminists. I'd like to start with saying that I see people as individuals, and judging them on gender expression is pretty much never going to be something that I do. I judge people on whether or not they are nice to others, and that's about it. 

Feminism was supposed to be about creating a world in which men and women were truly equal, and while there have certainly been an improvement in many societies, the world is still not an equal place, not even in countries where women are legally equals, and therefore our battles are not done. Part of what feminism has fought for is seeing women as people, and not pigeonholing them by their genitals, so it seems exceedingly hypocritical when people who call themselves feminists go around pigeonholing others according to their genitals. 

To the feminists who are quite a way outside stereotypical gendered behaviour:

On this blog I often write about stereotypically "feminine" things like dresses and makeup, fashion, etc. These are only some of my interests, and a lot more of my interests are things that are traditionally "masculine", and I know very well what it is like to be mocked, bullied, and ostracised by other women for not being girly enough, and treated badly by men for the same 'reason', and I know what it's like to have abuse hurled at me in the street for not presenting as "feminine" enough for the standards of lowlife drunks. 

{It was only a few days ago that I had "Oi! Mosher! F**k off you lesbo dyke, f**k off out of town, we don't want your kind, you aren't even f**king FEMALE" shouted at me by a gang of yobs in the town centre because I happen to prefer combat trousers, army boots, a trench-coat and a short hair-style to the short skirts, high heels, and long blonde-hair worn by many party-goers that January Friday night. I was also still listening when the same yobs shouted lewd sexual comments at the girls in heels and short skirts...}

I know that it hurts when you're on the receiving end of the prejudice against those who do not conform to gender stereotypes, but the existence of transgender people does not somehow confirm these insults to be right, and it is not another attempt to say that you, as a non-stereotypical woman, ought to go become a man, because women aren't supposed to be like that. It is the way some others want to lives, and it is not an attack against yours. 

To feminists in general:

If someone born in a biologically male-sexed body has surgery or uses other means to alter that body into one with female appearance, and live life as a woman, then they are going to receive a lot of the nasty inequalities aimed at women, as well as the prejudices that exist against transgender people. I can see why they'd want to join in with the feminist cause. Actually, I can see why any logical thinking person would want join in with the feminist cause; because anyone with any shred of empathy would realise that a world in which half the population are treated differently and as inferior to the other half is wrong. On a lot of feminist issues, whether someone is cis-gendered or trans-gendered should only really matter to their doctors and has no impact on the debate. Yes, there are certain health issues that can only affect cis-gendered women, and that things like reproductive rights issues are going to be particularly important to women who can get pregnant, but to outcast transgendered women from feminism because of this is equal to saying that cis-gendered women who have had hysterectomies, or are sterile, or whatever, cannot partake in feminism. 

Spend less time arguing about who does and does not get to be a feminist, and spend more time making the world a fairer place. Being mean to somebody else is not doing anything helpful to make others not be mean to you; this is playground stuff, I shouldn't have to explain it outside of work.

Oh, and never, ever get into the whole 'suffering Olympics' of trying to rank each other's woes and out-woe each other. Everyone's experiences are unique, and the amount of negativity they will get for being a certain minority will vary due to various factors. Really, this sort of behaviour is just pointless attempts at point-scoring. 

Goth, Definitions and Inclusivity vs. Elitism

Today I ended up in a rather involved and passionate debate over what it takes to be a Goth.

The term Goth, or any other label, exists to summarise interests in terms of describing an aesthetic, a musical genre, and participation of a subculture.  In terms of the word 'Goth' describing a level of participation in the subculture, to me  there is a sort of Goth 'triumvirate' of aspects (I know that the word triumvirate refers usually to three leading people) - a Goth is someone that is interested in Goth music, admires the Goth aesthetic (including fashion) and has the broader mindset and lifestyle. A Goth is someone who is involved in all three aspects. Some believe that the term Goth can apply to someone who is involved in only two of  the three. I know that what does and does not constitute the music, lifestyle or aesthetic is up for enough debate, let alone the level of involvement it takes to call oneself a Goth, and that each Goth probably has their own standards, but that is the definition I use. 

What I actually want to talk about is not so much where to draw the line, but how that line is used in the subculture.

It seems that in attempts to be very inclusive of people with a variety of interests, all sorts of things that are not actually Goth, and sometimes not even alternative or dark, get lumped under the term, as do other subcultures such as Steampunk and Lolita. I have no problem with being accepting of people with interests in Goth and other subcultures, people who have hybrid subcultural affiliation, and other forms of subcultural and cultural cross-polination, but for the term Goth to remain a useful description, it needs to have some sort of definition. One does not need to say, for example "oh, Gothic Lolita is Goth" or some such in order to socially accept Gothic Lolitas. All that does is muddy the waters and make it more difficult for people to communicate their actual interest - the proliferation of terms has coincided with the proliferation of hybrid subcultures, new subcultures and    , with the rise of the internet, a globally connected alternative scene where people want to communicate with and connect to people with similar interests. If the term 'Goth' becomes too broad, it stops signifying a reasonable amount of potential interests and becomes vague. 

The biggest issue, though, is the imaginary correlation between Goth-ness and acceptance, and a concept that how Goth someone is equates to how cool, or how pretty, or how interesting, or how nice they are as a person or a whole load of other equally unrelated assumptions and non-existent relationships between terms.  If you accept or reject people purely on how close they stick to a label, then you are probably a very shallow person indeed - people are a lot more than the sum of their music collection,  clothes and interests. There is nothing wrong with being a metalhead that likes Goth fashion, or a Gothic Lolita that likes Goth music, and just using terms like those to describe it should not mean a lack of acceptance by the groups involved, but sadly it seems that some people feel that unless they are 'true Goths' they can't have acceptance, and equally, there are people who would have Goth as an isolated subculture exclusively for participation in by those who are, to them, 'true Goths'. Surely we should be open-minded and accepting enough for it not to matter how Goth someone is? 

There seems to be a confusion between the exclusivity inherent in a term that describe something - as for a term to be a valid description a word does have to exclude certain things,  for example the word purple does not mean pink, red or blue, it only means purple; pink and, red and blue not being purple doesn't make those other colours any less colourful, it just makes them not purple - and a sense of exclusivity in terms of a closed club for only certain people. People should be able to freely participate in the subculture at any level they choose, from an interest in only certain aspects of it, to living as a Goth for all 24 hours of every day, all seven days of every week and all 365 (or 366) days of every year, and do so without judgement. It is far more important for people to be true to themselves than it is for them to adhere to a label. Goth is not an exclusive club or a clique; it is a descriptive term; there is no value judgement to it. It is open to participation by anybody interested, and people can participate at a variety of different levels and contribute in a variety of ways. 

Acceptance of non-Goths with an interest in the subculture should not be a case of "You're not goth enough, but I still like you" as if whether or not liking someone has ANY RELEVANCE to how much they participate in the subculture, on what level, and in what manner. Those things ARE NOT RELATED, or at least should not be. It is creating some kind of relationship between acceptance and aesthetic/musical preference/lifestyle that I see as the problem. You can like someone who does not have all the exact same interests as you do, and you can despise someone who does - there are certainly people who share a huge amount of common interests with, but whom I cannot stand (and sometimes wish I could hit over the head with a sturdy cane...).

If it was not for the term 'Goth' being used for the purposes of creating social boundaries, we'd be discussing what musical techniques define the sound in musical terms, or what artistic movements have contributed and how the visual aesthetic can be described, or some such instead of discussing elitism and exclusivity. To me, Goth is something akin to Romanticism; a creative movement, something defined by a musical and visual aesthetic and way of looking at the world, and therefore, ultimately something like Romanticism or Impressionism. Nobody argues over whether the definitions of either are elitist (or at least not anywhere I come across) because as historical movements of times past, the terms mean little in terms of social inclusion or acceptance in the present day (says someone who calls herself a latter-day Romantic) and thus people feel much freer to define them by specific aesthetic, musical, literary and philosophical styles and differences. 

It is time that elitism within Goth dissipates, and that people feel free to clear about their interests, and to admit their extra-subcultural interests, or a desire not partake in certain aspects, without people judging them as somehow lesser for not being Goth enough. Such shallowness breeds a feeling that it is somehow  not right to explore or other paths, or to admit that for example, one likes the fashion but not the music. There is nothing inherently wrong in liking Goth fashion but preferring say, folk music. It might not be Goth music, but if the person is happy listening to it, then there is no issue. There is far more of an issue when people force themselves to adhere to a certain subculture against their own preferences in order to feel accepted.