Band Review: Nahko

I am still not sure that I have the title right.

Nahko Bear is the person, and he has performed as Nahko and Medicine for the People, but his newest album, My Name is Bear, is listed under just Nahko. The Indian Country article that led me to him called him Nahko Bear, so that was what I originally had.

Those distinctions may not matter much, but one reason I am looking at them is that the latest album is somewhat of a departure, and a returning to the past.

I have been concentrating on My Name is Bear. It is not wholly different. There are earlier songs that sound similar ("We Are On Time" from Hoka comes to mind).

In a gross oversimplification, My Name is Bear is quieter. With Medicine for the People there is a definite world music feel, and it is celebratory and joyful -- maybe not every song but that element comes up again and again.

My Name is Bear is more reflective. It is also harder to classify. Continuing with inadequate explanations, there are times that it reminds me of Roger Miller and Cat Stevens, but that is just for they style. The mood is one of considering all the roads that brought one to this place. The roads for Nahko Bear involved adoption, and being indigenous but raised in a white home but meeting his birth mother. It passes through Oregon, Louisiana, Alaska, and Hawai'i. There is a lot to the journey and a lot in the record. It seems wonderfully fitting that "Dragonfly" was done with Paris Jackson.

I do recommend listening to the earlier music too, but starting with My Name is Bear can make sense too, because it is the beginning. But if the beginning comes later, because you can't see it clearly until you gain some perspective, that makes sense too.

http://nahko.com/

https://www.facebook.com/nahkoandmedicineforthepeople/

https://www.youtube.com/medicineforthepeople

https://twitter.com/NahkoBear

Band Review: Nataanii Means

I became aware of Nataanii Means through a Mic article by Tom Barnes:

https://mic.com/articles/116942/8-songs-by-native-american-rappers-that-deserve-to-be-heard#.iSvxnirpr

I already knew and reviewed two of the artists listed, Frank Waln and Litefoot, but the other six will all be covered this month, starting with Nataanii Means today. That makes this article slightly more influential (for my review choices) than Touré's Smithsonian article on the Blues, and it also means that this November is pretty heavy on rap (eight out of ten artists).

Means feels like a good starting point because of points of connection. Just listening to his 2 Worlds album, Frank Waln is featured on "Real Skins" and Nataanii's father Russell Means (previously appearing in books and movies that were part of Native American Heritage Month, but not previously in music) can be heard on "The Radical".

For the rap itself, Means reminds me most of what I was hearing in the early 90s, where the musical elements started sounding more serious, but before it was becoming lyrically nihilistic. That is appropriate for content that is serious and acknowledges hard situations, but that has not given up. "Genocide" is a good example of that. "Islands" might come pretty close to giving up, but it's a fine line.

(If my analysis of rap and its history seems off, I'm sorry. There are other genres that I know much better.)

I think Means' music can be great for driving along, but it would be a shame not to pay more attention.

https://www.youtube.com/user/means55

https://soundcloud.com/nataanii-means

https://twitter.com/Nataanii_Means

Thinking about Dustin Hoffman

Some people are probably grieving for Dustin Hoffman:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/dustin-hoffman-sexually-harassed-me-i-was-17-guest-column-1053466

He has a long career with some great roles, which would be enough for many fans to not want this to be true. Beyond that, there was this video which touched many hearts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE

The top comment there is that you can tell he's a good person. Hold on to that thought.

I was less surprised to hear allegations of harrassment about Hoffman because I had read this article:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/meryl-streep-kramer-vs-kramer-oscar

To be fair, even before the article, I had already thought that "method acting" might only be an excuse for abusing your co-stars. That was largely based on reading about Jared Leto and Suicide Squad.

I don't know that all method actors are abusive; some are probably just mildly frustrating. Hoffman has had a reputation for being frustrating on set for a long time, though I only learned about it recently.

Before the Vanity Fair article, the only reference I had ever heard was the story of Hoffman staying up for two days before filming a scene for Marathon Man where his character was supposed to be exhausted, and Laurence Olivier suggested that he try acting. Funny, especially the way Steve Martin told it on "Saturday Night Live", but not completely accurate either.

Choosing different ways to provide an authentic performance is not automatically a bad thing. I can see how arriving physically exhausted might keep you from being ready to do multiple takes, therefore less ready to keep up with the rest of the cast and crew. Of course, it might also make you more likely to nail the first take. Those are probably good things to discuss with the director and rest of the cast before going in.

For example, one thing they did to help Justin Henry - the child star of Kramer vs Kramer - was shoot the film in sequence, so he did not have to keep jumping back and forth along the story arc to access the right emotions. For a child new to acting, that is a logical way to get a better performance. That would also be something that everyone understood beforehand.

It is questionable about whether there was the same universal buy-in to Hoffman telling Henry things to make him sad for real when he needed to be acting sad, as the article mentions. It seems pretty certain that Hoffman did not have buy-in from Streep on slapping her and goading her about her dead fiancé and the things he did to improve her performance. She wasn't as well-established then as she is now, of course, but I think there's a general acceptance that Meryl Streep does not need unsolicited help in delivering a good performance.

Here's something interesting: I was not able to completely track it down, but the origins of the "Try acting" story may be that Hoffman insisted on having Olivier doing a lot of improvisation and things that made him uncomfortable, and the protest may have come from that.

If we think about this in relation to sexual harassment and assault, notice the lack of interest in consent. Notice the self-assurance that all of this domination is for the good of the film; he's doing them a favor.

As a side-note, I have this sentence in my blog drafting file - "I put off writing about toxic masculinity" - because I had started writing one post, and that wasn't the way to go so I paged up and started writing what really ended up being that day's post and kept going. Several posts later, I still haven't gotten where I meant to go, but in a way it feels like I haven't been writing about anything but toxic masculinity (except maybe for Monday's post). It's everywhere.

Does that make Dustin Hoffman a bad person? Well, how are you going to define that? He is probably good to a lot of people. In the context of the wider discussion and the known allegations, Spacey is worse and Weinstein is much worse, if you can get past the unhelpfulness of the gradations.

At the same time, that for a moment Hoffman could get that men ignore interesting but unattractive women, and feel how unfair it was, does not make him a good person. It's not enough to see the inequality in a flash and then go right back to profiting from it, whether that profiting is done consciously or not. You can choose to stay conscious and work for something better, or you can choose to do what comes easily.

As far as that goes, in Tootsie a very difficult actor lies, sleeps with his vulnerable student (because it's easier than being honest with her, even if it can hurt her), uses information gained under false pretenses to make inroads with an attractive woman, but still gets the funding he needs, accolades, and even the attractive woman he wanted after one well-deserved punch in the stomach. Plus the interesting woman was a man all along so he didn't need to be attractive. I'm not sure that's the game-changer it's supposed to be.

Going back to the original story, I can easily believe that Dustin Hoffman did not intend serious harm to Hunter. Society has given many messages that young girls are hot and flirting is cool and chick only resist you because they have to do that to be lady-like. Going unquestioningly along with that happens. It doesn't feel good for the people on the receiving end, but it's not particularly beneficial for the giver either. It's not beneficial for society, though society's structure backs it up.

As we navigate that, there are decisions to make. They may involve people that you like a lot. It can be helpful to remember that this character you like so much is a character, and not the actor (though that can be so disappointing).

The answer isn't always going to be to stop liking people because of the things they do, but it should not be overlooking things they do because we like them either. It probably helps if you don't idolize anyone too much.

Anyway, I think we are done with Hollywood for a while. We are not done with abuse or with the systems that encourage it. More on that next week.

Concerns about Kevin Spacey

This isn't so much concern for Kevin Spacey. I mean, if he can turn his life around and start making amends for some of the harm he has caused that would be great and I have nothing against redemption. One could argue that his initial actions don't bode particularly well for redemption, but that gets us to the first set of concerns.

The first concern is how he opportunistically used coming out as a way to deflect the first allegation.

During the #metoo discussion, several men's accounts have involved gay men. That makes sense. There is a lot of socialization involved in women being trained to not be the aggressor. It doesn't mean that women never become predators, but it is more common among men. You can also get sexual assault against men by straight men as a way of dominating and humiliating, and that has its own factors.

All of that aside, for that creepy, not particularly violent even if still aggressive kind of harassment, when it happens to men, a lot of those aggressors will be gay men, and it is not because they are gay. Whom they target might be because they are gay, but that they are targeting anyone is a separate issue. That shouldn't even require explaining, but there has been a lot of homophobic framing of gay people as predators working to convert and corrupt our youth.

Tomorrow will focus on Dustin Hoffman, but an interesting thing about one person's account of his harassment is that she mentioned many other people working on the play, and only one was a problem. She met other predators in other situations, and she ran into at least one person on the set who told her to just deal with it, but with all of those older straight men only one harassed her. Hoffman's actions are not an indictment of straight men, and Spacey's actions should not reflect on other gay men.

To be fair, Spacey also seems to have thrown alcohol and sex addiction into the mix, so perhaps he was just throwing everything at the board. I can understand some desperation, but even if at the first statement we only knew about Anthony Rapp, Spacey knew there were others. Even if he truly can't remember everyone, he knew there were others. This is a time for choosing words carefully. If your words form other people's perceptions, that matters for all of the gay men and alcoholics and sex addicts who nonetheless manage to keep their hands off of young people and people working for them and overall just manage to not be abusive.

Speaking of people who work for you, that leads to the second concern, the apparent cancellation of Spacey's series "House of Cards".

Granted, this appears to take one hunting ground away, but it does it by leaving many others unemployed, including victims.

This may be more complicated based on pre-existing plans to end the series or Spacey's role as an executive producer, but you can't tell me that killing off a character or sending him to jail or having him go missing under mysterious circumstances would not allow for a lot of exciting dramatic opportunities.

Allow me to introduce one more concept that I learned about through Black women (primarily Mariame Kaba): restorative justice.

Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm done to the victim. It is easy for us to gather our righteous anger and become all about the punishment. No matter how mad we get, the most common result in these cases continues to be the offender remaining pretty wealthy, with some fans still defending, and often an aggrieved sense of irritation. Somehow the system that relies on flexing power continues deferring to power.

If we changed our focus to helping those injured, what could happen then?

It takes listening to know that these problems exist. The #metoo dialogue has been great for that.

Now let's try to heal those problems by more listening.

(I am in no way an expert on restorative justice, but one place you can look for more information is http://restorativejustice.org/#sthash.rhnr30B5.dpbs.)

Based on a true story!

My family has had a pretty high correlation of watching historical movies and reading the related books, especially this year.

We saw Hidden Figures in 2016, but did not end up reading Margot Lee Shetterly's book until this year.

Also this year we watched A United Kingdom and read both Colour Bar: The Triumph of Seretse Khama and His Nation by Susan Williams and A Marriage of Inconvenience: The Persecution of Ruth & Seretse Khama by Michael Dutfied. (There is also a related TV movie from 1990, but we haven't seen that.)

When we saw A United Kingdom there was a preview for The Zookeeper's Wife, which we thought looked interesting. We later saw that and read the book of the same name by Diane Ackerman.

(We also went to see Dunkirk this year, but we haven't read anything on it, and we read Unbroken by Lauren Hillenbrand this year, but we haven't seen the movie.)

I have done some additional reading on some of them, via articles or researching specific issues. We always wonder about things, but I suppose the base question is always about the accuracy of the movie: how true to life was it?

I'm not saying that this is a general rule for all movies, but most of the movies listed did pretty well. The main issue seems to be condensation. Spoilers will follow.

There is compression of time. When Baby Jacqueline is born and the Khamas take her to England, it is several years before they go back for that meeting with her father's uncle. Of course, more babies had been born too, so perhaps that is also compression of characters.

For example, there really was a Nazi zoologist, Lutz Heck, who took some of the animals from the Warsaw zoo, wanted to breed back older species, and had a crush on Antonina Zabinska. There was a soldier who took her son out of sight and fired a gun, terrifying her but ultimately not killing Ryszard. They were not the same people.

That is understandable, in a way. There should be higher emotional stakes in having the threat come from someone who has loomed so large in the story, though you could argue that the emotional stakes of fearing for your son's life are already pretty high. It is realistic to have fear about what any Nazi will do.

Beyond that, there were three other Heck's, the father and brother of Lutz. You learn about all of them in the book, but in the movie you don't really need them, nor more characters to track.

Sometimes these things are easy to guess. After watching Hidden Figures, I suspected (correctly) that Katharine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Mary Jackson were probably not really best friends. They had friends, and those friendships were important, but there were a lot of women working at NASA over many years, making it less likely that the three most prominent (the book discusses a fourth, Christine Darden) were also in the same carpool.

I had two other good guesses from there, being that Katharine Johnson never really got to have a rant like in the film (she would have deserved it, but Black women are still rarely allowed that), and also that the issues were not really resolved by heroic Kevin Costner ripping down the signs segregating the bathrooms. That seemed unlikely, especially because his character did not seem to have on single correlating historical figure. However, if you put Kevin Costner in your movie you have to give him something important  to do. Everybody knows that.

The real story is more complicated, with things like one women removing the label segregating the coffee every day until they gave up replacing it. Her friends told her she was going to get fired, but she prevailed. Practical persistence gets results more often than dramatic moments.

Maybe that's the most important thing to remember. As much as we want things resolved quickly and definitively, history tells us that is much less likely than movies would have us believe. That may sound like a reason for discouragement, but it is really a reason for persistence, and endurance.

Some of the books mentioned will be treated in other posts that I will get to eventually, but first I am going to spend some time on some actors and Hollywood, and that can be very discouraging.

Persist.

Band Review: Phrase Frazier

Yesterday I mentioned a lack of available material for the band, Bloodline, except there was information on other projects for at least one of the band members.

There are similar issues with Phrase Frazier, but different. There is a Soundcloud page, but it is not clear that Phrase performs on it, or that he set the mix.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to listen. A rapper can act as a DJ and a mix-master, so their musical aesthetic matters. Listening to the #NODAPL mix is an experience. It starts with news clips and ends with them, but after the journey you have taken musically the same quotes sound different: more urgent, more tragic, and more meaningful. That is powerfully done, but I can only safely assume that Phrase Frazier approves of it, and not that he made it.

That brought me back to my original point of knowledge about Phrase Frazier, an article in Indian Country Today:

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/thing-about-skins/watch-native-battle-rapper-phrase-frazier-destroy-racist-rhymer/

That is not like listening to a studio recording -- even a fairly DIY one. There are breaks, though it is amazingly smooth considering the circumstances. There is an immediacy to it. And there is a lot to admire about Frazier's ability to respond and keep taking the high road while facing slur after slur.

It's an interesting transposition. There are times when rap, based on its content and delivery, can feel like an assault. That can only be exacerbated when you need to respond to it.

It is hard to get past disgust with Pyrex's racist content. It's like he doesn't even have the ability to say anything else. Maybe rap battles are similar to wrestling, where some people will take on hero and villain roles, but there are still better ways of being a villain.

Without physical contact, the fight aspects of this are very real, and it is a breathtaking relief that Frazier is able to deliver. He builds in energy and strength and triumphs.

While Frazier does not appear to have his own Youtube Channel, Universal Battle Realm does, and has multiple videos of Frazier with other opponents. Conflict averse types would probably prefer a recording of Frazier doing various tracks on topics of his own choosing, and I cannot find that this exists at this time. However, if you are interested in more rap battles, UBR gives you a lot to explore.

https://soundcloud.com/phrase-frazier

https://www.youtube.com/user/UniversalBattleRealm

Band Review: Bloodline

I put down Bloodline for review because I saw something with Loren Anthony, who does vocals and bass. I believe it was something related to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

The tricky part now is that I am not sure how current the band is. They were started in 1998, almost twenty years ago. There is still some activity on the Facebook page, but not a lot.

That doesn't have to mean much. As I started reviewing indigenous artists last year, many of them were focusing far more on #NoDAPL than their music careers, for which I could not blame them.

Still, some other artists had previously posted more music on line. ReverbNation has one song, one video, and I found at least two other videos on Youtube, but on different channels.

Anthony himself does many other things, including acting, speaking, and Iron Warrior Fitness. But I review bands.

So, for Loren, but also for Virgil Wilson and Leland Anthony on guitars and Steve Baca on drums, I listened to the songs I could find multiple times.

Bloodline is a metal band out of Gallup, New Mexico. The brand of metal feels more hardcore, with the growling and existential anger. That feels generationally appropriate for a band that started in 1998, though I have heard it with newer bands as well. They invite you to imagine that Machinehead had a baby with old school Sepultura, and I suspect that's pretty apt.

And I can only suspect that, because metal isn't my strongest genre. The intro to "Sacrifice" reminds me a bit of KISS circa 1979, but it is definitely more metal than rock.

If Bloodline wants to focus on the band, they could use better web organization, and there are lots of options for doing that. If other projects are more important to them, that's okay too. I wish them well whatever their path.

The first two links are specific to the band, and the last two are for Loren Anthony.

https://www.reverbnation.com/bloodlinemetal

https://www.facebook.com/bloodline.nativepride.metal/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaXSXavIu8gjEOiL5047ONQ

https://twitter.com/Loren_Anthony_

Codes of conduct

I hope that everything that I have said over the past two posts has sounded logical. I hope that is the result of examining practices rather than being carried along with the tide.

People have the right to dictate who can touch their bodies. That sounds logical. You can make hypothetical cases about when it is not practical, and you can have an emotional feeling of irritation in reaction to being challenged on that. Still, when we realistically discuss why some contacts happen and why they are unwelcome, it becomes hard to defend unwanted touching, as it should be.

I think that serves as an example of the importance of discussion. We have already seen the power the #Metoo conversation has in sharing support and strength, but it has also been educational. People are learning more about what happens, and to whom and by whom, and I hope are motivated to fight against all forms of abuse.

Allow me to suggest that one great starting place is for different groups to examine their codes of conduct relating to sexual harassment.

Focusing on the workplace, larger firms with Human Resources departments probably have a policy in place already. I have already mentioned that one of the discouraging aspects of the discussion lately is how many people have reported their harassment and seen nothing done. Let's build on the existing momentum and start a new discussion that is determined to do better.

Looking at the flaws in the old systems helps. How have reports been handled? It is advisable to have multiple avenues and means of reporting. Someone may have a hard time speaking about it and be more comfortable via email. For others it may be too hard to write it out. And if there is only one person receiving the complaints, that person can become an obstacle for others. A process that is clearly understood and easy to follow improves not only the ability to handle issues, but also the ability of the employees to believe that it does matter.

My first thoughts about conduct codes were inspired by comics conferences, but all types of conferences have added them. They have been added because conferences were often hotbeds of abuse.

Think of it this way: in a local office when there is a predator and complaints don't help, that unofficial network of warning each other provides some protection. Conference travel removes some of the warnings and the inhibitions. Over time some people learn and watch out for each other and warn each other, but it is still not nearly as effective as making and implementing a policy against the harassment.

It doesn't always work out. A little digging will show cases of conventions dragging their feet on consent, often due to a reluctance to break ties with a known harasser. You can find cases of reporters being harassed for their reporting. That is frustrating, but it should also pretty thoroughly establish that these problems will not go away on their own. It requires cooperation, and effort. We can do that.

It can work; some conventions have gotten so much better, and are so much more welcoming. This has been great for business. More people feeling safe attending and staying is good for the convention itself and for individual vendors.

A workplace that works against harassment may lose the contribution of some staff who just don't want to give up on abuse -- that is true. That workplace may also find that there is better collaboration. They may find that people feel more free to contribute ideas and that they are having better ideas now that don't have to waste so much mental energy trying to avoid abuse and healing from abuse.

You may even find that teaching those in leadership positions to treat everyone respectfully - regardless of position - improves their management abilities. There are supervisors who belittle and shame without ever being sexual, but they are still bringing down the working environment for everyone. Sometimes you may have to choose between profits and people, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Attachment to the status quo is often based on this fear that even things you hate are better than the potential chaos of trying to change. If the changes you seek are to improve things for people, and you are openly discussing how to make things better, that's not the likely result. If a system is only held in place by abuse, we will be fine letting go of that system.

So talk about it.

Teaching men and women how not to uphold rape culture

That title is overly complicated. I'll tell you how I got here.

A week ago I posted about things that don't help combat sexual assault, most of which put the responsibility on the targets. Sometimes on that topic people will argue that rather than teaching women how to avoid being raped, we need to teach men not to rape.

While I agree that the responsibility needs to focus on the rapists rather than the victims, where I felt contradictory was my belief that rapists know not to rape; the violation of someone else is their motivation, not a byproduct.

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2017/10/things-that-dont-help.html

So when discussions on consent become about establishing immunity from rape accusations, I find that to be a very frustrating way of missing the point. That is why yesterday's post was about including bodily autonomy rights in consent discussions. Sexual assaults aren't accidents (because rape is more about power than sex).

Then I read this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/us/campus-sex-assault-mothers.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

It is about a group of women who have been working to weaken guidelines on campus sexual assault after their sons have been accused of rape. Fun parts include the justifications that even though their sons were not "falsely accused", they were still "wrongly accused" , and that in their generation it wasn't considered assault but just the girl getting stupid and embarrassed.

(Just a note, most women would not consider going through reporting an assault as a good way to fix embarrassment.)

Still, I think the part that stuck out most was the woman who said that her husband and their two sons were "super respectful" of women and concluded "We don't really need to teach our sons not to rape."

Yeah, I think you might need to.

Then there was finding out about Elie Wiesel groping a 19-year old girl's butt, and former president George H. W. Bush's butt-groping count moving up to five, and Oregon Senate president Peter Courtney having to reprimand Jeff Kruse for repeatedly touching women at the Capitol.

First, for anyone who wants to make the point that ass grabbing is not a big deal, I will give you that the vast majority of women would rather be groped than raped. I am still not going to minimize it.

It wouldn't be good on its own. It's disrespectful, objectifying, and it is embarrassing. You can tell yourself that their behavior is not personal -- they are treating you this way because you are a women and that makes you a good opportunity to assert their dominance. We remind each other of that all the time; I have done this yesterday and this morning with different women. We have to because it is the easiest thing in the world to think it's you. Somehow there must be something wrong or weak or despicable about you, for them to treat you like that.

Getting grabbed is not a compliment. It can be fun for the person doing it, but given how negative an experience it is for the one receiving it, no decent person should find that an acceptable way of having fun. And that's just for the groping, because women never know where it will stop. Some are satisfied with a quick feel, but there are others who are pressing boundaries, calculating how far they can go. Some of them really enjoy feeling the fear, but then there are others who will be annoyed with your fear, because obviously it was all in good fun.

There is fear in pushing back against it too. There aren't many visual cues behind which pushy guy will just swear at you once, which will find ways to up that to frequent verbal abuse, which will slap you or which will shoot you. I wish I were exaggerating.

So I think sometimes the reason we have a hard time moving past rape culture is there are so many people who - without being predators or prey - don't understand that there are predators or how difficult being prey can be.

Many of these are men who would never rape a woman who still feel free to critique her clothing choices or demand that she smile or slap her butt. There are also men who will say they would never rape, but then admit to having done things that fit the legal definition of rape without calling it that. And there are women who will support them, especially if it's family.

So okay, maybe we do need to teach people not to rape, or harass, or assault, or assert their dominance over someone else's body, because they don't have a right to that person's body. See, it's that bodily autonomy again.

But here's a way where focusing on obtaining consent can be helpful, beyond avoiding legal charges. When you want to do something to another person, imagine asking for permission: how do you sound?

The good news is that if it turns out that you sound like an ass, perhaps you will enjoy grabbing yourself.

A word about teaching consent

A while ago a class of 4 and 5 year olds had a lesson on consent. At least one of the parents was very pleased to see her son asking for hugs.

I had a mean thought, imagining a manipulative child asking for hugs while knowing it would look bad for anyone to refuse. I'm not saying that's what happened, but some people enjoy making others uncomfortable. Finding ways to disguise that better works great for them.

So teaching consent is important, but the thing that needs to be taught with it is bodily autonomy. My body is mine, so I should have the ultimate say in who gets to touch it and how they get to touch it.

I have had good experiences with people asking if hugs were okay. I was recently reading about someone who had some past trauma that had some lasting effects. She loves and trusts her husband, but if he were to surprise her with a hug he could really be surprising her with a flashback. If he did not respect that he would not be worthy of her trust. That goes beyond hugs.

There can be room for negotiation. If one half of a couple is in the mood for sex, and one isn't, the one not in the mood should be able to refuse. It is also possible that they will go along with it anyway as a concession to the relationship. The other half could also not want to impose, and wait. There could be a discussion about what would help get moods and schedules synchronized. That can be beautiful if it involves love and respect, and gross if it involves guilt and coercion, but a lot of that will come down to whether each one respects both their own and their partner's body.

That belief in individual rights may sound obvious, or it may sound like too much.

For example, if I am on a crowded train, I cannot dictate that everyone maintains a six-inch distance away from me; that would be unreasonable. Mainly we all try and not crowd each other, and maybe it's not pleasant but it's fine.

You also have people who will take advantage of the crowded conditions to rub against others for their sexual gratification. This is called frotteurism. (Actually, I see frottage more, but when the rubbing is specifically non-consensual, it's frotteurism.)

I should have a right to not have people grind on me; most people won't even disagree with that in a hypothetical. However, in the event of it happening, there is still a good chance that I will not be able to get someone to believe me or not think that I am making too big a deal of it, or that I might not have signaled in some way that it was okay, or that I should just acknowledge that it could have been worse.

It should be obvious that each person has a right to their own body, but there are too many indications that it isn't. It is more likely to be a minimization or denial of what happened than an actual denial of that right, but it still happens. Perhaps that means it isn't obvious, and needs to be taught.

I can imagine a lot of objections to this, especially with teaching children that they have a right to their bodies. One example that is frequently given is that you should not force your children to hug or kiss or sit on the lap of anyone that they don't want to, and then your child's shyness is embarrassing you at the family reunion.

Possibly, but if the reticence is related to abuse, you are going to regret pushing the issue later on when it all comes out. If there are sensory issues where the child has a harder time dealing with being touched, surely that can be supported. Even with shyness, just acknowledging that the child's desires matter can be a hugely encouraging thing and allow them to warm up more.

I was feeling like a bit of a hypocrite, because I physically restrain children regularly. This primarily happens when they are at the stage where shoving their hands in other children's faces or snatching toys away appears to be the only fun thing to do. I use words to talk about why this is not good and give them other options, but I am also holding them. (These are generally children aged from 18 to 30 months, so some words may sink in, but you can't necessarily tell.)

I feel better about that realizing that my restraint is specifically for teaching them not to dominate others, regardless of their intentions. I don't restrain them for convenience.

A lot of preserving power is about convenience. We can - without personally abusing our own power - uphold a system that makes abuse of power easy.

So here is a baby step: acknowledge that everyone has autonomy over their own body. Do you believe that? Do your actions support it?

Can you handle hearing "No" from your significant other? Can you say "No" to your significant other without fearing that you will be rejected or injured? Can you trust that allowing your children to question you won't automatically make them monsters?

Is that the rule in your workplace? If it isn't, would you know? What needs to change for that to be a reality?

It's okay if these questions make you uncomfortable, but don't let that stop you from thinking about them. It may be the surest sign that you need to.

Band Review: Shock Horror

I know the recommendation for Shock Horror came from Ed Auletta, but I swear he wasn't on Twitter at the time. I think he posted something about them on Instagram, and then someone else (probably Frank Iero) tweeted that. I had heard good things about Ed, and it was reasonable to believe he had good taste in bands. So, it may have been a more roundabout path than usual to today's review, but it still works, especially for October.

Shock Horror doesn't merely have a name that sounds Halloween-adjacent; they describe themselves as Halloween-themed. That may be more obvious in tracks like "Make Mine A Frankenstein" and "Sunsets Are For Muggings", but there are more existential horrors too, like "Teenage Ruts" and "My Favorite Band Broke Up Today (I'm Not Okay)".

(I can't swear to that being a My Chemical Romance reference, but the timing is such that it could be.)

The Yorkshire band delivers its thrash punk beautifully. I feel things like speed and in your face aggression. Stepping back I know they could be faster or more aggressive, but that wouldn't make the songs better, so what they are instead is right. Good. Satisfying. Maybe fun, sometimes, except you can think about things that are more serious with it. But then you could also just listen to the guitar and drums instead of over-thinking it.

Except Shock Horror does appear to be thinking, embracing a punk ethos inspired by Ian MacKaye that includes making their music available readily and freely. Their Blame The Parents EP can be found on Soundcloud, Reverbnation, and YouTube, though Youtube appears to lack an additional song "You're Just A...".

I can easily go ahead and recommend listening to the music simply because it is good, especially if you like punk. Beyond that, there has been a lot of warm fuzziness with feelings of connection. People I like, like this band, or like people that like this band, and then this band likes other people I like, and reminds me of yet additional bands I like. For example, "Teenage Ruts", whether intentionally or not, makes me think of The Ruts, but if you remind me of them and mention Ian MacKaye, then I am also going to think of Henry Rollins.

And yes, everyone mentioned so far is at least punk-adjacent, and when things get so warm and fuzzy that it is basically kitten hugs that may not seem very punk rock, but connection and community is, so it all works out.

(Perhaps this is where I mention that the closest I have come to interacting with Ed Auletta was when I gave Frank Iero some Chocodiles to pass on to him. Corporate brands and junk food, but consideration of others too; punk can work in mysterious ways.)

Anyway, it's a good band, check them out.

http://www.shockhorrorband.com/

https://www.facebook.com/shockhorrorband/

https://soundcloud.com/shockhorrorband

https://www.youtube.com/user/shockhorrorband

https://www.reverbnation.com/shockhorrorband

https://twitter.com/shockhorrorband

Band Review: Fatally Yours

If you check out Fatally Yours (an alternative/rock band from Baltimore) now, links are going to point to their most recent song, "Another You".

That's logical, because it is new. It also gives you one impression of the band that could be limiting.

"Another You" is angry and growling, perhaps bitter. That doesn't make it a bad song, but as you listen more the band has songs with different moods that are really beautiful. That is especially true of "Exit Sign" and "Every Moment". It kind of doesn't sound like the same group.

That's an unfair impression too. "Horror Fashion" comes from the same time period and demonstrates some similar aggression and energy. There is a harshness to the chords on "Calling Out" that doesn't undermine the melody but is still noticeable.

It is possible that the band is moving in a harder direction, making "Another You" a signal of what is to come.

It could also just be a reminder that there is more than one song to any band. You don't know until you listen, and until you explore a little more.

If you do that, Fatally Yours is pretty good.

http://www.fatallyyoursrocks.com/

https://www.facebook.com/fatallyyoursofficial/

https://www.youtube.com/user/officialfatallyyours

https://twitter.com/FatallyYours1

Things that can help

I have two concrete things I want to write about, but as I did mention the structural issue as an impediment, we should take that into consideration.

Sexual harassment and assault is built around a power imbalance. The abuser can not only leverage access to jobs and wealth, but also tends to have the social and political power so is less likely to be questioned. I don't know that we can really call it trust, because not believing the victim is not quite the same thing as making a choice to ignore it, but still, it's a factor.

Bearing that in mind, one potential solution comes from a New York Times op-ed by Lupita Nyong'o:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/lupita-nyongo-harvey-weinstein.html

After recounting her own experiences with Weinstein, she says that she has not had an similar experiences since. She attributes this not to her actions, but that the projects she has worked on have had women in positions of power, and men who were feminists. This has created good environments.

Yes, there are women who are abusive, as well as abusive men who are self-proclaimed feminists, but there are people who don't abuse. You can hire them and then you don't need chaperones and people wearing wires because you are not giving the predators free rein.

I have written about how some of this is luck, and perhaps an area in which Nyong'o has been lucky is that more women are slowly getting more directing gigs, and they are making some pretty profitable films. Putting more women into production roles and onto boards could be a great step toward reducing harassment, and the odds are good that it will still be profitable. Weinstein didn't rape and sexually harass everyone, but he was a bully to a lot of people too. What if you don't need to put up with people like that to make money?

It doesn't mean that you fire all the men either, but if Hollywood truly cares about this, then they need to quit hiring the open secrets. They need to quit resolving issues with Non-Disclosure Agreements. That is so blatantly obvious that you have to wonder if they would care if no one were talking about it.

But we are talking, and that's the second thing.

Tarana Burke started "Me too" ten years ago in the absence of community outreach for survivors. It is supportive and provides a way of finding your own voice. I have been planning on writing about that as a way forward for days. It has gone far beyond that now.

It's not just that other names have been added to the list in Hollywood. It is not just that Condé Nast has cut ties with Terry Richardson anymore, though that is huge. It is not just that legislators are getting called out.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/senate_president_to_oregon_law.html

It is that people are talking and listening. Many people remain terrible, as expected, but others have been much better than expected. This moment has gained momentum.

A few days ago I was thinking of how to build on the moment. Should there be a drop-in event where people can talk, or a chat room? How do you make it easier for people to speak out?

There are still many people for whom it is hard to speak, but at least there is an existing conversation they can join. There are still people with a lot of trauma to work through, and careers that have been lost, but this feels like forward motion.

A male acquaintance who had been simply watching the conversation asked about what to do with his own sexual harassment experience. There are some different obstacles there, where men are more likely to be attacked on their masculinity instead of their moral worthiness. It is progress that more men can feel safe divulging their stories too. There is room for encouragement here.

There is a tangent or two that I want to explore next week, but where we are in this moment is better than I expected. Listening matters.

And don't be surprised that both of those examples came from listening to Black women.

Things that don't help

This isn't about being pessimistic, because tomorrow will be about things that could help, but unhelpful suggestions seem to come up more often. I believe that's because there are a lot of false assumptions and misunderstanding of the issues. If we examine the flawed thinking, perhaps the thinking will improve.

Back when I read Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will, her solution to the problem was essentially that all women need to take urban defense classes. If we all know how to knee and gouge and hold our keys so that we are ready to stab with them, then we can be safe.

I loved this idea, because with that learning of self-defense there would be increased confidence and a feeling of power, and a reminder that your body is not just decor and an object for attraction, but it's you, and you can do things!

Not long after I saw a reasonable argument that the onus of preventing rape should not be on women; expecting women to prevent attacks can be a flip side to victim-blaming.

I still like the idea of encouraging women to take some kind of martial arts, for the other reasons, but there are flaws beyond the potential of "Why haven't you taken any kickboxing classes?" becoming the new "What were you wearing?"

Martial arts training may help some people not freeze, but freezing is a thing that can happen. It may not help people with disabilities, and they are targeted a lot. It may not help women who have been drugged. You can try watching your drink and even wearing the special roofie-detecting nail polish, but it can be so easy to miss something, and some people are really good at helping you miss it.

Self-defense training may not take effect soon enough to prevent childhood sexual abuse. It may not be enough in the event of a weapon, or multiple assailants.

Also, one actual way in which Against Our Will has become kind of outdated is that it focused on stranger rape. Sometimes strangers leap out from alleys, but that's not the most likely situation. It may be harder to gouge the eyes of someone you know, even as they attack you.

Also, let's remember that this discussion has not only been about rape. Think about sexual harassment in the workplace; hitting your creepy supervisor in the throat is going to get you fired. I'm not hearing a lot of stories of women who reported sexual harassment and saw appropriate consequences to the harasser, so I find it unlikely that they will be supportive of you taking your own action.

This lack of action is not due to lack of proof, or recording every interaction could be the answer. As it is, there is a recording of Harvey Weinstein admitting that he groped Ambra Battilana, and it didn't matter. This should not be surprising. Police have been using body cameras for a while, and not only do they not appear to affect police behavior, they do not result in convictions for criminal behavior. Lack of knowledge is not the issue.

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/study-body-cameras-make-no-detectable-difference-police-use-force

I addressed the problems with trying to get all meetings to happen at restaurants last week, but I have seen two stories this week that relate to it. In one, an actress was propositioned in the restaurant, played it off, but then the producer wanted a ride to his car, and she didn't feel she could refuse. At one point she thought, "This is it; I'm going to get raped", but all he did was fiddle with her dress for a while. Still dehumanizing, but ultimately a relief.

However, when a restaurant was too noisy and an interview needed to be moved, David Schwimmer offered to get the reporter a third person to be in the room so she did not have to worry.

That can serve as a reminder that clearly men do know about the issues, but is also a reminder that intent is a bigger problem than circumstances. There are ways of twisting circumstances, if you are motivated.

And that's something to remember in light of concerns about "witch hunts" and educating men. I'm sure there are some who make things worse ignorantly, but there are predators, and there are people who find it easier not to deal with predators because it upsets the status quo.

Solutions that put all of the responsibility on the people most at risk are popular for the very same reasons that they are ineffective. Anything helpful is going to need to look at addressing structure.