#Lyrical themes: Social politics Life experiences | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eliana-dreams · 1 year

Text

Newsies Limited Series Idea (rewritten)

This was a concept from one of my year-old posts. I re-wrote a new outline for fun.

Title: Newsies

Logline: Set in 1899 New York, Newsies is a period drama that explores the social and political landscape of the era through the eyes of a group of newsboys struggling to make ends meet.

Overview: Based on the 1992 film and real-life events, Newsies is a fresh take on the beloved story that delves deeper into the lives and struggles of the newsboys. While the series will maintain the charm of the original, it will take a more serious tone, delving into the societal norms, identity, and friendship that are challenged during this time in history.

Themes: The series will explore themes of social justice, friendship, and identity as the newsboys come to terms with their place in a rapidly changing world.

Characters: Newsies features a diverse cast of characters, each with their unique story and struggles. Viewers will be taken on a journey through the eyes of the newsies as they navigate through the turbulent era.

Real-life and fantasy elements: The series will seamlessly blend real-life and fantasy elements by incorporating historical figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, Hearst & Pulitzer, Big Tim Sullivan, and some of the original newsies to create an engaging and unique viewing experience.

Musical elements: Although not a musical, Newsies will incorporate lyrics from the original songs into the dialogue, paying homage to the beloved music that made the original film a hit.

Distribution: The series will be available on Netflix or other streaming services, providing a broad audience with the opportunity to enjoy this exciting new adaptation.

Newsies is a period drama that explores the themes of social justice, identity, and friendship through the eyes of a group of young newsboys. With a diverse cast of characters and blend of real-life and fantasy, the series is a unique viewing experience that pays homage to the beloved original.

EPISODE 1: The Maine

The episode begins with a fade into July present-day. We see the city of New York below with its skyscrapers projecting brazenly into the sky, high above the street-level bedlam. We see the blur of vehicles in the city streets. The camera comes even lower, and we see rapidly moving traffic. The streets of lower Manhattan are saturated with cars. We see pedestrians darting in between the cars and hear the blare of a hip-hop recording that matches the frantic pace of the traffic. The camera zooms in even further, focuses on a young man eating lunch on the white steps of a building. He is scrolling a New York Times article on his cellphone as the camera begins to zoom out. We see the city as a rich mosaic of colors, which turns into an urban grey blur. The blur lasts for a few seconds.

Exterior, New York City, May 1968. Groovy guitar music. This time the buildings are not as stark, the traffic in the streets not quite so frantic. The cars are older. The camera focuses on a young man, eating lunch on a park bench. The newspaper he is reading has a headline about the assassination of Martin Luther King. We see the date. A hippie couple is sitting down not far from the young man reading the paper. The man puts his hand on her knee, and she places her hand lovingly atop his. We see them lean in closer as the camera starts to zoom out. She pulls away at the last moment as the shot becomes more distant and blurs.

Exterior, New York City, July 1920. Jazz music. The streets of lower Manhattan are still clogged, but this time, with old automobiles, men in straw boater hats chatting amiably in one corner. On another corner, two schoolboys—one Puerto Rican and one Italian—fight as other boys cheer them on. The camera focuses on a young man reading an illustrated paper as he leans against a lamppost. The camera pans away from the young man and onto a crowded street in which we see pop-up stands and multilingual vendors. Here we see a young Chinese girl feeding bread to pigeons. She tries to frighten away a larger pigeon. It refuses to move, and she waves her arms, sending the small flock of birds into the air as the camera zooms out again to a blurred view of the area.

Exterior, New York City, 1898. Then the sound of fiddling folk music rises as the camera slowly moves in once again. The streets of lower Manhattan are indistinct but sharpen gradually. We hear the clicking of typewriter keys and presses rolling. Words appear on the screen with articles from Spanish-American War. Newsboys are running around, shouting headlines and selling papers at a rapid pace. The camera then focuses on a young boy, Jack, as he jostles his way through the crowd, calling out for customers. War with Spain is splashed across the headlines. The sinking of the Maine.

As he makes his rounds, we see snippets of other newsies - a group of brothers goofing around, an older boy giving a paper to a passerby with a sly smile, and a young girl standing timidly in the corner trying to sell her papers.

As Jack continues to sell, we hear snippets of conversations about the war, with people eagerly devouring the news of battles and victories. The price of papers has gone up, but nobody seems to mind. Business is booming for the newspaper tycoons, especially William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.

We then get a glimpse of Hearst's flamboyant and cynical personality, as he cracks jokes with his reporters and revels in his wealth and power. Pulitzer, on the other hand, seems more reserved and conflicted, torn between his duty to report the news and his desire to sell papers.

Meanwhile, we are introduced to the Jacobs family, a close-knit group who are doing better than most during the war. Mr. Jacobs is a hard-working man who is proud of his family, including his son David, who is top of his class, and his daughter Sarah, who loves playing the piano. Mrs. Jacobs, however, is a bit more skeptical, especially when her son Les brings home a stray kitten.

We also meet Brian Denton, a young reporter for the New York Sun who is eager to make a name for himself. He is tired of covering society columns and longs to write about something more meaningful, like the war. He meets with his childhood friend, Nellie Bly, who gives him some advice on finding good stories.

But Denton's boss warns him not to go too far in his quest for a scoop. They must stay competitive with other papers but not resort to sensationalism.

As the day progresses, we see more of the newsies' hardships, including Jack standing up for his friends and the younger kids. But things take a turn when Jack has a chance encounter with Snyder, an aggressive warden who seems to have it out for him.

Jack manages to escape but bumps into David on his way out. David is heading to a lecture hall, and Jack convinces him to pretend he's a student so he can hide from Snyder.

Meanwhile, the Delancey brothers, two mischievous newsboys, get jobs at their uncle's distribution center, while Mr. Jacobs gets injured on the job and is fired. The family is now in financial trouble, and they must sell their beloved piano to make ends meet.

As the episode ends, we see Jack and his newsie friends rallying to help the Jacobs family in their time of need. It's a testament to the bond that has formed between them and the sense of community that has grown among the newsies.

Overall, the episode highlights the excitement and chaos of a time when newspapers were the primary source of information for the masses. It also highlights the struggles and hardships of those who relied on selling papers to make a living.

EPISODE 2: The Strike

The episode opens with a glimpse of the New York City skyline, which looks different from today's. Then, the camera focuses on two young boys, David and Les, walking down a busy street. They look determined yet apprehensive.

The episode continues with David and Les arriving on the scene as they desperately search for jobs to support their family. Jack recognizes David from their previous encounter and takes them under his wing to teach them the tricks of the trade. Through Jack's narration, we are introduced to the different newsies, their selling spots, and their personalities.

The newsies are struggling to make ends meet as prices have not been lowered since the war, and several have been forced to vacate their lodging house due to the inability to pay rent. Kloppman mentions the death of one of their friends due to starvation, which scares many of the newsies into taking action.

David suggests the idea of a union, which Jack considers as he recalls the trolley strike. However, the newsies are divided on the issue, with some unwilling to risk their livelihoods. Some of them quit and take up other trades, leaving only a small group of strikers.

Jack takes charge of the strike with David as his second-in-command. They attempt to negotiate with Pulitzer, but he throws them out immediately. The Delancey brothers taunt Jack, but he fights them off and earns the respect of the other newsies.

The episode introduces the mysterious and intimidating Spot Conlon, who is rumored to be a powerful newsie in Brooklyn. We see flash cuts of him beating up rival newsies, but we never see his face.

As the strike continues to escalate, the newsies become more organized, with Jack and David leading the charge. They eventually catch the attention of the media, which brings more attention to their cause. The episode ends with a cliffhanger as we see Pulitzer's reaction to the strike and the potential consequences for the newsies.

The episode is filled with gritty action, tense negotiations, and the struggle for justice in a time of great economic inequality. It captures the spirit of the newsie strike and the passion of the young boys fighting for their rights.

EPISODE 3: The Sacrifice

The episode opens with a montage of the newsboy strike in Manhattan, with newsies knocking over delivery wagons and getting into small fights with local distribution center workers. The strike has grown in numbers, but there are still a few newsies who are unable to contend with the lack of work and money and have given up.

The camera follows Crutchy Morris as he limps through the streets of Manhattan, his newsboy cap pulled low over his forehead. He stops in front of a delivery wagon, his friends gathered around him, and suddenly a scuffle breaks out. The sound of fists hitting flesh echoes through the alley as Crutchy's friends fight to protect the strike. Despite his hesitation, Crutchy joins in, throwing punches with his good leg. But the fight is quickly interrupted by the arrival of the Delancey brothers, Spot Conlon's enforcers. The Delanceys are ruthless and take pleasure in causing pain, and they have no qualms about targeting even the most vulnerable strikers. As the Delanceys advance, Crutchy throws himself in front of a younger striker to protect him. The Delanceys make quick work of Crutchy, landing blow after blow until he lies motionless on the ground. The camera shows the violence in graphic detail, with the sounds of bones breaking and blood splattering against the pavement. The Delanceys, satisfied with their work, leave the scene, leaving Crutchy and the other injured strikers behind. The police arrive to break up the fight, arresting some of the strikers and taking Crutchy and the others to the Refuge. The Refuge is a brutal place, with guards who take pleasure in causing pain to the children who are sent there. Crutchy, with his injured leg and broken bones, is particularly vulnerable. As the episode ends, the camera shows the other strikers gathered outside the Refuge, planning their next move. The strike has turned violent, with blood on the streets and friends being taken to jail or the Refuge. But despite the danger, they know that they cannot give up, not while the future of all newsboys is at stake.

EPISODE 4: The Girls

Opening shot: A crowded street in Manhattan, with newsboys shouting headlines and garment workers making their way to work. We meet Sarah Jacobs, a garment worker, who is listening to the newsboys as they talk about the strike. She's intrigued and decides to learn more.

Cut to: The Newsies' headquarters, where the boys are discussing the strike and the arrival of the garment workers. They are initially hesitant to accept their help, but Sarah speaks up and convinces them to let the women join in the fight.

Cut to: The Harlem streets, where the newsies and garment workers are fighting for the cause. The scene is violent and intense, with blood and sweat flying everywhere. Skittery is badly injured, and Sarah disguises herself as a boy to fight alongside the others.

Cut to: The aftermath of the fight, where the newsies and garment workers have been forced to retreat. Sarah is celebrated as a hero for her bravery in the fight, but the group is demoralized by the loss.

Cut to: Sarah's home, where she is visited by Spot Conlon, who warns her about the danger of continuing the strike. He tells her that she should leave the cause before it's too late.

Cut to: The newsboys' headquarters, where they discuss their options after the loss in Harlem. Some want to continue the fight, while others are ready to give up. Sarah speaks up and convinces them to keep fighting, despite the risks.

Cut to: The final showdown, where the newsies and garment workers are facing off against the police and the hired thugs. The scene is chaotic and violent, with weapons and fists flying everywhere.

Cut to: The aftermath of the fight, where the newsies and garment workers have won the battle, but at a great cost. Skittery is still recovering from his injuries, and many of the others are bruised and battered. Sarah is hailed as a hero, but she's lost friends and colleagues in the fight.

Closing shot: A weary and battered Sarah walking through the streets of Manhattan, looking up at the sky, wondering if it was all worth it.

EPISODE 5: The Dream

Opening Shot: A close-up of an old, leather-bound journal with the words "Jack's Memoir" embossed in gilding, a gift from Medda a year ago. The camera pulls back to reveal a young newsie, Jack, sitting on a bench, scribbling away in his journal.

Jack's voiceover: “Dear Ma and Pa, it’s been some weeks since you left me in the city. I pray this letter finds you hale and hearty. As for myself, I'm waist-deep in the strike, fighting for what's right. But it’s not as plain as I reckoned it'd be.”

Cut to: Jack and his fellow newsies picketing outside the newspaper distribution center, chanting and holding up signs. They are met by a group of burly men, hired to break the strike.

Jack's voiceover: "Well, we've had a few run-ins with the strikebreakers, but nothing that would ruffle a feather. It's the bulls that keep me up at night. They're getting as mean as snakes in a sack.”

Cut to: Jack and the newsies in an intense argument with a group of distribution employees.

Jack's voiceover: "It's a curious case we're in, my friends. Some of them fellows who handle the distribution shares our sentiments, but others are in a tight spot and simply trying to keep their livelihood. It's a conundrum, and I'm uncertain of the right course of action to take."

Cut to: Flashback of Jack violently attacking a newsie about his age who was selling papers.

Jack's voiceover: "Friends, I must confess to a regrettable incident. My temper got the better of me, and I wronged a lad who bore no ill will. It pains me to consider his sister, who depended on him to earn a living. I'm beginning to recognize the dual nature of this conflict; not every soul can afford to cease work.”

Cut to: Denton, a wealthy businessman, watching the strike from afar, a scheming look on his face.

Cut to: Jack and the newsies preparing for a major fight with the grown strikebreakers and cops.

Jack's voiceover: "We're fixin' for a mighty ruckus, and I'm a mite uncertain if we're ready for the scrap. But we've got to stand firm for what we reckon's right, come hell or high water."

Cut to: Jack's infamy spreading to other newspapers, including Snyder's usual paper, a corrupt prison warden with a vendetta against Jack.

Closing Shot: Jack closing his journal and looking up, a determined look on his face.

Jack's voiceover: “ I ain't the one to prophesy the future, but I reckon I gotta keep on fightin' for what's right. Perhaps I'll head west, but not 'til we've settled this strike. I owe it to my fellow newsies. By the way, have you seen how them stars glitter over the canyon at night?" "

The screen fades to black.

EPISODE 6: The Ambassadors

Opening Shot: A wide shot of a scorching hot New York City street. We see newsies in ragged clothes walking around with signs and water cups. One of them, Mush, is sweating profusely.

Mush's voiceover: "This is the burnin'est week ever seen and here we are protestin' in the streets. It's a tough goin', but we knows we gotta keep pushin' for what's fair and square."

Cut to: Kid Blink and Mush cracking jokes and trying to keep their fellow newsies' morale up.

Kid Blink's voiceover: "Me an' Mush, we're doin' our damndest to keep everyone's chins up, but it's gettin' tougher by the minute. We're in dire need o' funds, an' some o' our own boys are jumpin' ship an' workin' for the enemy. It's enough to make a fella's heart break.”

Cut to: Flashback of a newsie crossing the picket line, and the others shouting at him in anger.

Mush's voiceover: "It's a sight to break a newsie's heart, to see our own kind turning against us. But we won't give in, no sir. We've got backing from other boroughs, and we'll hold fast and see it through."

Cut to: Denton conducting interviews and running stories in the Sun, catching the attention of powerful figures like former newsie and senator Big Tim Sullivan and Roosevelt.

Cut to: Pulitzer in his office, looking at his plummeting circulation numbers.

Pulitzer: "I cannot permit this strike to continue indefinitely. The boys will inevitably exhaust themselves. We must remain steadfast and bide our time."

Cut to: Pulitzer's wife confronting him about the strike and trying to talk sense into him.

Pulitzer's wife: "They are but mere children, Joseph. You must see reason."

Cut to: Flash cuts of Mush and Kid Blink visiting various parts of the city, trying to convince newsies to join the strike.

Mush's voiceover: “We're tryin' to be messengers for the other boroughs, ya know, tryin' to get 'em to join the strike. It ain't no easy job, but we're makin' progress, by jove!”

Cut to: Medda holding a rally at Irving Hall in support of the strike, preparing for the event.

As Medda reminds her employees, “Well, darlings, I think it's high time we showed our support for the newsies by holding a rally! We can't just sit back and do nothing when there are injustices to be fought. I understand some of you might be worried about your careers being tarnished by Hearst's or Pulitzer's papers. But let me tell you this, my dears, if we let the fear of bad press silence us, we'll never make any progress. We must be brave and stand up for what's right, no matter the consequences.”

Closing Shot: A close-up of Kid Blink and Mush's determined faces as they continue their work, trying to keep the strike alive.

Kid Blink's voiceover: "We ain't givin' up, boys. It's our duty to fight for what's fair, no matter the cost. We’ll stick together like glue.”

The screen fades to black.

EPISODE 7: The Cavalry

The episode begins with a colorful, symmetrical shot of the newsies preparing for battle, their slingshots at the ready. The scene is contrasted with the dark, shadowy figure of Hearst, who is seen orchestrating the ambush from afar.

As the fight breaks out, the camera follows the chaos and violence in a series of quick, snappy shots. The newsies are clearly outmatched, but they fight on with all their might. Meanwhile, Racetrack narrates with his characteristic wit and humor, providing commentary on the battle and the various characters involved.

As the Brooklyn newsies arrive, the tone shifts to a triumphant one. The camera lingers on their colorful attire and unique personalities, capturing the spirit of the newsies' unity in the face of adversity. Spot Conlon, a striking figure in red suspenders, takes charge and helps turn the tide of the battle.

The scene then shifts to a quieter moment, as Jack, badly injured and beaten, is relieved by Spot. The two have a tense moment of conversation, with Spot offering a mix of tough love and support to Jack. The camera focuses on their faces, framed by the chaos of the battle behind them.

In the aftermath of the fight, the newsies regroup and the strike committee is formed, with Spot and Racetrack both taking on important roles. The camera captures the formation of the committee in a series of symmetrical shots, with the newsies arranged in a neat, orderly formation.

As the episode draws to a close, the camera lingers on the injured newsies, as they receive medical attention and the others tend to their wounds. The scene is shot in soft, warm light, emphasizing the compassion and camaraderie of the newsies. The episode ends with a hopeful note, as the newsies continue to fight for their rights and their dignity in the face of oppression.

EPISODE 8: The Rally

The rally episode of the newsies strike would be filled with quirky and whimsical details. The newsies, dressed in their mismatched outfits, gather in a park filled with bright colors and unusual decorations, like a giant topiary of a newspaper or a fountain spouting ink instead of water.

During the rally, Mr. Jacobs gives a stirring speech while standing atop a platform made of old newspapers, while the newsies use a megaphone made from a discarded gramophone horn. As the rally reaches a fever pitch, the police arrive, clad in stiff, uniform outfits that contrast sharply with the newsies' eclectic fashion.

The ensuing battle between the newsies and the police is filmed in slow-motion, with quirky, over-the-top action sequences that emphasize the physical comedy of the fight. Meanwhile, Medda's theater is transformed into a makeshift hospital, with colorful bunting and streamers hanging from the walls and the newsies' injuries patched up with bright, mismatched bandages.

As the newsies recover, Skittery narrates the events with his usual dry wit and sarcastic tone, giving a running commentary on his fellow newsies' quirks and foibles. The rescue attempts for Jack are shot like a heist movie, with inventive gadgets and daring stunts that wouldn't look out of place in a spy film.

By the end of the episode, the newsies emerge victorious, with the public opinion swayed in their favor and Jack safely returned to their ranks. Racetrack, with his fast-talking and charismatic personality, is promoted to the spokesman of the strike committee, and the newsies celebrate their victory in a colorful, eccentric party filled with dancing, singing, and more newspaper-themed decorations.

EPISODE 9: The Nightmare

The episode opens with David staring at the kitten, worried about its well-being. He turns to Les and promises to find a way to keep the cat fed. Meanwhile, the newsies are determined to intensify their strike and make a stronger statement to the city. They gather on the Brooklyn Bridge, chanting and holding signs, effectively bringing traffic to a standstill.

As the day wears on, David becomes increasingly tempted by the idea of scabbing to earn money for his family. However, he is conflicted because he doesn't want to betray his friends and their cause. The internal struggle is portrayed through a series of quirky, visually striking sequences.

Meanwhile, in the Refuge, Crutchy and the other imprisoned newsies are organizing and planning their next move. They work together to write down their stories and the conditions they are living in, hoping to bring attention to their cause. Crutchy manages to slip the notes and letters to Denton during a visit, under the guise of an interview with Snyder.

Denton takes the notes to his friend Nellie Bly, who is an investigative journalist. Together, they publish an article that exposes the harsh living conditions and abuses that the newsies face in the Refuge. The article creates a public uproar, and the pressure forces the city to release the imprisoned newsies, including Crutchy and his friends.

The episode ends with David ultimately deciding to stand with his fellow newsies and their cause, even if it means sacrificing his family's comfort. The newsies celebrate the victory of their comrades' release, and the kitten is finally fed, much to Les' relief. The episode's final scene is a signature tableaux shot of the newsies standing triumphantly, with the Brooklyn Bridge in the background, as they continue their fight for justice.

EPISODE 10: The Legacy

The final episode of the period drama "The Newsies' Strike" opens with a montage of newspaper headlines reporting on the continuing strike by the newsboys against Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Despite facing police brutality and violence from scabs, the newsies refuse to back down and continue to picket and sell newspapers in their own way.

As the strike drags on, the circulation of both newspapers hits a record low, and the financial pressure on the publishers mounts. In a last-ditch effort to end the strike, Hearst and Pulitzer agree to a meeting with the newsies' leaders.

The meeting is held in a grand hotel room, filled with ornate furnishings and intricate wallpaper, all rendered in signature style. The newsies are dressed in their best clothes, but still look slightly out of place in the opulent surroundings.

After some tense negotiations, a compromise is reached: the publishers agree to buy back any unsold papers from the newsies from now on, and an official newsboy union is formed to represent the newsies' interests. The newsies are ecstatic, and the meeting ends with handshakes and smiles all around.

In the following scenes, we see the aftermath of the strike. Some of the newsies move on to other professions, such as delivery drivers and factory workers. Others continue to sell papers until they outgrow it and move on to bigger things.

The final moments of the episode show where each featured newsie ended up in life, both real and fictional. We see Jack, the charismatic leader of the strike, as a successful & philanthropic businessman in his later years. Davey, the intelligent and analytical newsie, becomes a lawyer and fights for workers' rights. Crutchy, the newsie with a limp, opens his own shoe repair business. And Spot Conlon, the tough Brooklyn newsie, becomes a detective.

As the camera pans out to present-day New York city, we see the old lodging house where Jack and so many of the others lived still stands today, preserved as a historic landmark. The Jacobs' flat, where Jack found a second family, is now part of the tenement museum.

Neither Hearst's nor Pulitzer's newspaper survived to the present day. But the legacy of the newsies' strike lives on, as a symbol of the power of collective action and the fight for justice.

Finally, the screen goes to black, and the sound of the newsies' fading victory chants echoes through the appearance of the credits. The end.

40 notes · View notes

ayshanagina · 1 month

Text

Art and Poetry

Poetry and art, two seemingly distinct forms of expression, often intertwine in a mesmerizing dance of creativity. Each medium has its unique language, yet they share a common goal: to evoke emotion, provoke thought, and stir the soul. In this exploration, we delve into the harmonious relationship between poetry and art, uncovering the ways in which they complement and enrich each other.

At their core, both poetry and art are vehicles for storytelling. While poetry weaves narratives with words, art communicates through imagery, color, and form. Yet, when combined, they create a multi-dimensional experience that transcends the boundaries of language and perception.

Consider the works of renowned poets like William Blake and Sylvia Plath, whose words evoke vivid imagery and provoke profound emotional responses. Blake's illuminated manuscripts, adorned with his own illustrations, transform his poetry into visual masterpieces. Similarly, Plath's confessional poetry, coupled with her haunting sketches, offers a glimpse into the depths of her psyche, blurring the lines between word and image.

Likewise, visual artists often draw inspiration from poetry to inform their creative process. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, for instance, sought to imbue their paintings with the lyrical qualities of poetry, embracing themes of love, nature, and spirituality. Through their intricate compositions and symbolic imagery, artists like Dante Gabriel Rossetti and John William Waterhouse brought to life the ethereal landscapes of Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalott" and Keats' "La Belle Dame sans Merci."

Beyond mere inspiration, poetry and art engage in a symbiotic dialogue, each influencing the other in profound ways. The abstract expressionists of the mid-20th century, such as Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning, drew upon the spontaneous rhythms and improvisational techniques of jazz poetry to inform their gestural painting styles. The result was a dynamic fusion of word and gesture, sound and color, creating a visceral experience for the viewer.

In the realm of ekphrastic poetry, writers respond to visual art with words, offering their own interpretations and insights. Through the poet's eyes, the static canvas comes alive with new meaning and narrative possibilities. Anne Sexton's "The Starry Night" and W.H. Auden's "Musée des Beaux Arts" are prime examples of how poetry breathes new life into iconic works of art, inviting readers to see them through a fresh lens.

Moreover, poetry and art serve as powerful tools for social commentary and cultural critique. From the protest poems of Langston Hughes to the politically charged canvases of Frida Kahlo, artists have long used their creative platforms to challenge the status quo and advocate for change. By blending word and image, poets and artists amplify their voices, sparking dialogue and fostering empathy in the face of injustice and oppression.

In essence, poetry and art are kindred spirits, bound by their shared quest for truth, beauty, and meaning. Whether separately or in tandem, they have the power to illuminate the human experience, transcending time and space to touch hearts and minds across generations. As we continue to explore the infinite possibilities of creative expression, let us celebrate the enduring legacy of poetry and art, forever entwined in the tapestry of human culture.

In the symphony of life, poetry and art are the melodies that echo through the corridors of our souls, resonating with the rhythm of our shared humanity.

And nothing unites art and poetry more than the mere feeling of melancholy, which is my most adored form of writing ;)

#aesthetic #artwork #poetry #literature

6 notes · View notes

repriseofthereprise · 4 months

Text

Catharine MacKinnon speaks on the work of Andrea Dworkin

This speech was given by Catharine A. MacKinnon at the Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference, April 7, 2006. This original transcript was prepared by secondwaver (blog now defunct).

Andrea should have been here for this. She would have liked it, or most of it. [laughter in audience]

There’s something awful, in both senses, that is, terrible and awe-inspiring, both, about Andrea’s work having to be my topic, instead of my tool, speaking her words not only to further our work together as they were and we did, for over thirty years, but to speak about it, and about her, as a subject, and in the past tense.

Yet even at the same time, her clarity and her passion and her inspiration to all of us to go further, go deeper, flows through her words.

Her whole theory is amazingly present in each phrase that she used. As Blake saw a whole world in a grain of sand, in each of Andrea’s sentences you can see the whole world the way she saw it.

Andrea Dworkin was a theorist and a writer of genius, an unparalleled speaker and activist, a public intellectual of exceptional breadth and productivity. Her work embraced the last quarter of the twentieth century and spanned fiction, critical works of literature, political analysis in essays and speeches and books, and journalism. Her legacy includes a vivid example of the simultaneity of thinking and activism, and of art and politics. Formally, she was an Enlightenment philosopher, in that she believed in and used reason. She was interested in diginity and equality and morality, and, especially, in freedom. Her contribution as a complex humanist was to apply all of this to women, and that changed everything.

An original thinker and literary artist, Andrea saw society ordered by power and the status excrescences of its variations animated by the sexual. She pioneered understanding the social construction of sexuality, and the sexual construction of the social, long before academics dared touch this third rail of social life.

In talking about The Story of O, a book of S/M pornography, in her book, Woman Hating, she says, “The Story of O claims to define epistomologically what a woman is.” She saw O as “a book of astounding political significance.”

Largely overlooked as an intellectual in her own time, she mapped social life before the postmodernists did, finding fairy tales and pornography to be maps for women’s oppression. She wrote about humiliation and fear before study of the emotions was a big academic trend. She analyzed social meaning before hermeneutics really caught on in the scholarly world, asking what pornography means, as for example, in the preface to Pornography, “this is not a book about what should or should not be shown. It is a book about the meaning of what is being shown,” what intercourse means, to men and women, most of all, what freedom for women means.

Her first book, Woman Hating, she “wrote to find out why I am not free, and what I can do to become free.” In her later work, this emphasis on freedom was synthesized with a re-made equality, consistent with and necessary for that freedom.

Her cadences were rhythmic, her use of repetition gaining inevitability and momentum, her suddenly-shifting convergences and metaphors were telling, and often surprising, lyric and antic, fluid and explosive by turns.

Such was her skill as a writer that she gave us almost the experience of pornography without her writing–being–pornography. She could even make intercourse funny, writing of Norman O. Brown speaking of entering women “as if we were lobbies and elevators.” [laughter in audience]

And for undertaking a synchronic reading of her work as a whole and selecting some over-arching themes, I want to reflect for just a minute on what it means that we are here doing this.

The relation between the work and the life is not a new question. But the relation between who Andrea Dworkin was and how her work was socially received is. And it has, as some of us have noticed, shifted noticeably, even dramatically, since the death of her body.

Three months after she died, so unexpectedly, a prominent French political theorist in a Ph.D. exam that I was in, in Paris, referred to her, excoriating the poor student, for eliminating various notables from the bibliography, referred to her as “l’incomparable Andrea Dworkin”–this, in a country that has long refused even to translate her work!

How has the world related Andrea Dworkin’s body to her body of work? Why was it necessary to destroy her credibility and bury her work alive, only now to be resurrected, disinterred, as it were? Why can now she be taken seriously, respected, even read, now that her body is no longer here? Why this is the first conference ever to be held on her work is one side of the coin of the question of why there never was one when she was alive. Her work is as alive now as it ever was, as challenging, threatening, illuminating, inspiring. Maybe it is that she can no longer tell us that we’re wrong, but don’t bet on it. Or maybe if you engage her work while she’s alive you further her mission, and we can’t have that, now, can we?

But why was respecting her and taking her work seriously such a risk? Why were the people who did it considered brave? As the quintessential scholar of the hell of women’s embodiment in social space, Andrea’s relation to her work is posed by, as well as in, this conference. Her work guides us to pursue this question, I think, as one of stigma. Stigma is what has kept people from reading Andrea Dworkin’s work, especially in the academy, where, I must note, people are not noted for their courage. That stigma has been sexual, due to her public identification as a woman with women, including lesbian women, especially as a sexually abused woman publicly identified with sexually violated women–in particular, the raped and the prostituted among us.

Being marked by sexuality, is, in her analysis, the stigma of being female, analyzed by Andrea in greatest depth in Intercourse, a work of literary and political criticism, a work of how men imagine and construct sexual intercourse when they can have it any way they want it, as they can, in fiction. It is a work of criticism of literature, that is at the same time a trenchant and visionary work of social criticism, her most distorted, I would say, a signal honor in a crowded field, published in 1987, at, as John and I were saying, the height of her powers. Of Elma, in Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke, she wrote: “This being marked by sexuality requires a cold capacity to use, and a pitiful vulnerability that comes from having been used, or a pitiful vulnerability that comes from something lost or unattainable, love, or innocence, or hope, or possibility. Being stigmatized by sex,” she wrote, “is being marked by its meaning, in a human life of loneliness and imperfection where some pain is indelible.”

If the stigma of being a woman is the stigma of the body sexually violated, it lessens some when you die. That, girls, is the good news! [laughter in audience] Before now, we have had to be kept from reading Andrea Dworkin’s work, and were, by the living, breathing existence of her sexualized body attached to it, thereby, that work was sexualized. We had to be kept from holding a violated woman’s body in our hands and having her speak to us what she knows. Especially, we had to be kept from knowing in-depth, up close, and personal, that for women, having a body means having a sexuality attributed to you, the sexuality, specifically, of being a sexual thing for use, and from knowing that the need to be fucked in order to see and value ourselves as female means living within a political system that is pervasive, cultural, organized, institutionalized, unnatural, and unnecessary. Cutting to the quick of all of this, with her customary conciseness, Andrea always said she would be rich and famous when she was dead.

Now, Andrea’s great subject is the status and treatment of women, as has been said, focusing on violence against women, as central to depriving women of freedom.

Andrea’s method was predicated on the lived, visceral body experience that women have of our social status. She mined her life, particularly, in her work, knowing what she wrote from experience. Her driving force was rage and outrage, unapologetic critique, unbridled, passionate, truth-telling. Her sensibility was tenderness, kindness, and love. Her aesthetic is political–political in method, that is, you know it’s true because it happened to you, political in voice–clear, direct, no writing for passive readers, as John noted, and no talking down to anyone.

In the rhythms you can feel her breathing. Here is a woman talking to a publisher who is trying to get her to have sex with him. Essentially, this is a woman being sexually harassed. It is from Ice and Fire.

“I want, I say, to be treated a certain way, I say, I want, I say, to be treated like a human being, I say, and he, weeping, calls my name and says, please, begging me in the silence, not to say another word, because his heart is tearing open, please, he says, calling my name. I want, I say, to be treated, I say, I want, I say, to be treated with respect, I say, as if, I say, I have, I say, a right, I say, to do what I want to do, I say, because, I say, I am smart, and I have written, and I am good, and I do good work, and I am a good writer, and I have published. And I want, I say, to be treated, I say, like someone, I say, like a human being, I say, who has done something. I say, like that, I say, not like a whore. Not like a whore, I say, not any more. And I say to him, seriously, some day I will die from this, just from this, just from being treated like a whore, nothing else. I will die from it and he says, dryly, with a certain self-evident truth on his side, you will probably die from pneumonia, actually.”

Her writing is new; this is a new voice in literature. It has new forms; it’s full of new ideas, in part because the reality she wrote, like her, was submerged and ignored. But she was interested in all the classical questions of western philosophy–method, reality, consciousness, meaning, freedom, equality, especially the relation of thought to world, and the connections between social order and human action.

She created new concepts: moral intelligence, scapegoat, woman hating, not quite the same as misogyny, gynocide, gave new meaning to the term possession. She was a profound moral philosopher, and she gave new juice to old concepts like dignity, honor, and cruelty.

But I’m going to do a reading now, today, of her as a political philosopher, a specifically intellectual reading of her work in terms of these questions. Which is not how she wrote it to be read, actually. But she certainly knew what she was doing in these terms. She did not use the word method, but she had one, and she knew it. She observed in her book Pornography: “Women have been taught, that, for us, the earth is flat, and that if we venture out we will fall off the edge. Some of us have ventured out, nevertheless, and so far, we have not fallen off.”

In the afterward of Woman Hating, she said this: “One can be excited about ideas, without changing at all. One can think about ideas, talk about ideas, without changing at all. People are willing to think about many things. What people refuse to do, or are not permitted to do, or resist doing, is to change the way they think.” She knew thinking had a way, and that she had a way of thinking, and she wrote to change the way people thought.

Central to all her work was a metaphysical distinction between what she once termed truth and reality. While the system of gender polarity is real, it is not true.” The polarity of the sexes is a reality because reality is social. Equality of the sexes is true, but social reality is not based on it, but instead on a model that is not true, that is, that the sexes are bipolar, discrete, and opposite–some of us with little, tiny feet. For example, “we are living imprisoned inside a pernicious delusion, a delusion on which all reality, as we know it, is predicated.”

And, then, similarly, on the relation actually between sex and gender–not called that–but check it out: “Foot binding did not emphasize the differences between men and women, it created them, and they were then perpetuated in the name of morality.”

She also said we “need to destroy the phallic identity in men, and masochistic non-identity in women.” Now, it is not that she thought all reality was only an idea, as in classical idealism or only a psychology or an identity in the internal sense. She analyzed material reality and ideas as equally, and reciprocally, even circularly determinative. Of reality, she wrote this: “Men have asked over the centuries a question, that, in their hands, ironically, becomes abstract: ‘What is reality?’ They have written complicated volumes on this question. The woman who was a battered wife and has escaped knows the answer.” Philosophers, take note (is my note here): “Reality is when something is happening to you, and you know it, and can say it, and when you say it, other people understand what you mean and believe you. That is reality, and the battered wife, imprisoned alone in a nightmare that is happening to her has lost it, and can not find it anywhere. A fist in your face is not just the idea of a fist in your face. Reality is relational, and that relation is unequal and social.”

She also wrote explicitly of the relation between the ideational and the material in women’s status, without using specifically those words. That is, both have to be there, and both are there. In Right Wing Women, her 1978 book, the most extended analysis of women’s status and of feminism together, the elements and preconditions of both, she said this: “It does not matter whether prostitution is perceived as the surface condition, with pornography hidden in the deepest recesses of the psyche, or whether pornography is perceived as the surface condition, with prostitution being its wider, more important, hidden base, the largely unacknowledged sexual economic necessity of women. Each has to be understood as intrinsically part of the condition of women, pornography being what women are, prostitution being what women do, and the circle of crimes–these are the crimes against women, rape, battering, incest, and so on, that she discussed–being what women are for.”

The resulting “female metaphysics” under male dominance means that rape, battery, economic and reproductive exploitation “define the condition of women correctly, in accordance with what women are, and what women do,” correctly meaning consistently and accurately, within the existing system. She also said you can’t be a feminist and support any element of this model, including “so-called feminists who indulge in using the label but evading the substance.”

Her identification with women made her especially brilliant at seeing how women’s views are reflected in their material circumstances, hence, were rational, in that sense, including in her devastating portrayal of the academic, not-Andrea, so-called feminist woman who begins and ends Mercy, one of her novels, having been sexually abused, actually, this not-Andrea woman with the arch voice, siding with abstraction, with power, and with distance.

Right wing women, she shows in her book of the same name, also side with male power, because it is powerful, and reject feminism because women are powerless, in the hope, and on the bet, that male protection is a better deal than feminists’ resistance and struggle for change. It is, in that sense, a rational choice, meaning a direct reflection of their circumstances, which isn’t to say that it’s in their long-term interest.

She saw, always, how what women think and do makes sense in light of the realities of male power. As she put about right wing women, “the tragedy is that women so committed to survival can not recognize that they are committing suicide.”

The right–this is part of her deep analysis of religious fundamentalism–gives women form, shelter, safety, rules, and love. This complex and respecting analysis completely outdistances any analysis of false consciousness.

Similarly, in Intercourse, which I am going to have to discuss, this part, she wrote complexly of what it meant that Joan of Arc was a virgin. Probably not literally, she said, but because she carried herself with the dignity of the nonpenetrated, i.e. as a man, and her dressing as a man meant noncompliance with her inferior/female status, for which the Inquisition killed her. Joan wore men’s clothes, not to flout convention, or to make a statement about women’s status, or to portray dignity (performists take note), but because she’d been raped in prison. All she had to do was say–this is Joan–that she would not wear men’s clothes, and they would let her go free. Andrea says, “she was a woman who was raped and beaten and did not care if she died. That indifference is a consequence of rape, not transvestism.”

A new concept of ideology as sexual was proposed by Andrea in the book, Pornography: Men Possessing Women. Pornography is analyzed as male ideology, for its meaning and its dynamics. The concrete harms of pornography weren’t, then, its central topic. All the evidence of that was to come. But Andrea notes that “with the technologically advanced methods of graphic depiction, real women are required for the depiction, as such, to exist.”

In asking what it means, she said this: “the fact that pornography is widely believed to be sexual representations or depictions of sex emphasizes only that the valuation of women as low whores is widespread, and that the sexuality of women is perceived as low and whorish in itself. She says, “The fact that pornography is widely believed to be depictions of the erotic means only that the debasing of women is held to be the real pleasure of sex, and it also embodies and exploits, sells and promotes the idea that ‘female sexuality is dirty.’

So how do you go from seeing to being pornography, from buying a woman in pornography to owning her, from owning pictures of her to owning her, you might be wondering. She says this: “Male sexual domination is a material system with an ideology and a metaphysics. The metaphysics of male sexual domination is that women are whores. The sexual colonization of women’s bodies is a material reality.” This ideology is effectuated sexually, a level of belief and experience never before analyzed as political and gendered in the way she did.

Now on the subject of freedom, her core concern. She notes in her piece, “Violence against Women: It Breaks the Heart, Also the Bones,” “Our abuse has become a standard of freedom, the meaning of freedom, the requisite for freedom throughout much of the western world.” She goes on to say, “as to pornography, the uses of women in pornography are considered liberating.”

The subject of Intercourse, specifically, is what freedom means for women, precisely, how it is denied by the inferiority imposed and the occupation effected thereby, “destroying in women the will to political freedom, destroying the love of freedom itself,” when it takes place under conditions of force, fear, and inequality.

She says, ” to want freedom is to want not only what men have but also what men are. This is male identification as militance, not feminine submission. It is deviant, complex.” This becomes something she terms “the new virginity,” or what might be called the new freedom. “Believing that sex is freedom,” she says, intercourse needs blood, “to count as a sex act in a world excited by sadomasochism, bored by the dull thud-thud of the literal fuck. Blood-letting of sex, a so-called freedom, exercised in alienation, cruelty and despair, trivial and decadent, proud, foolish, liars, we are free.”

This analysis converged her thinking on equality, which underwent a progression over her life. In Our Blood, the piece renouncing sexual equality, she rejected equality, which she understood there as “exchanging the male role for the female role.” There was no freedom or justice in it, an accurate understanding of the mainstream view of equality. Over time, she reclaimed and redefined equality. In “Against the Male Flood” she said, “equality is a practice; it is an action; it is a way of life. Equality is what we want, and we are going to get it.”

To clarify the relation between her freedom and the equality that she redefined, she said this (this is again in her piece for the Irish women, “Violence Against Women: It Breaks the Heart, Also the Bones”)–check this out–: “What we want to win is called freedom or justice when those being systematically hurt are not women. We call it equality because our enemies are family.”

Even with family, Andrea took no prisoners, a paradoxical result of her passionate humanism. She says this in “I Want a Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape,” a talk to five hundred men in 1983: “Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It’s because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.”

Now, her legacy leaves us a lot to do. We can learn from the richness of her thirteen volumes, we can read her work closely, figure out how her writing was so singularly effective, and we can effectuate it. We can respond to the challenges of her questions, and be changed by her interventions and fearless probing of the structures and forces and people that rule our lives, denied by most people, a denial she also analyzed.

But in the academy, you know, whole theses could be written exploring sentences chosen virtually at random, that are ripe with possibilities, such as this: “any violation of a woman’s body can become sex for men. This is the essential truth of pornography.”

Or this: “in pornography, everything means something,” overwhelmingly ignored by massive departments of Media Studies and Communications, except for a tiny branch of largely social psychologists. Or this one, an analysis of social life in gendered terms: “Money is one instrument of male force. Poverty is humiliating, and, therefore, a feminizing experience.” Now, envision an economics where the laws of motion of sexuality socially are as well understood as the laws of motion of money are understood today, and the relation between the two of them.

Or this. Racism has always been central to her analysis, as it was in Pornography: “the sexualization of race within a racist system is a prime purpose and consequence of pornography.” And she talked about depicting women by sexualizing their skin, thus sexualizing the abuse, sexually devaluing black skin in racist America by perceiving it as a sex organ.

In Scapegoat she took this entire analysis to a whole deeper and higher level simultaneously showing what a gendered analysis of racism would look like in application. Try this: “While Nazism was a male event, Auschwitz might be called a female event, built on a primal antagonism to the bodies of women, an antagonism that included sadistic medical experiments.” In Scapegoat she also said this: “Hitler tried to make Jews as foul and expendible as prostitutes already were, as inhuman as prostitutes were already taken to be.” All of this can be taken up, unpacked, deeply considered, extended, gone further with.

Andrea wanted a day without rape. She said, “I want to experience just one day of real freedom before I die.” And that was the day without rape. She didn’t get it. She told the story of her own life in many ways in her work, over and over again. In one meditation, in Ice and Fire, turning over and over Kafka’s referring to coitis as “punishment for the happiness of being together,”–that’s a quote from him–Andrea writes this: “Coitis is punishment. I write down everything I know, over some years. I publish. I have become a feminist, not the fun kind. Coitis is punishment, I say. It is hard to publish. I am a feminist, not the fun kind. Life gets hard. Coitis is not the only punishment. I write. I love solitude. Or, slowly, I would die. I do not die.”

She wrote in Intercourse of her vision of all of our sexual lives, never, as always, excluding herself. In writing of the sex reformer Ellen Key’s consistent vision of sexuality for women, in the words of Ellen Key: “based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible,” one not based, in Andrea’s words, “on fear of force and the reality of inequality as now.” “A stream, herself,” Andrea wrote, “she would move over the earth, sensual and equal; especially, she will go her own way.”

“A stream herself.” Well, maybe a raging river at flood tide, perhaps, Andrea went her own way. She even wrote what might be her own epitaph: “I am whole, and I am flames. I burn. I die. From this light, later you will see. Mama, I made some light.”

Living without Andrea is living without this special light, the one she burned her life to make. Her incandescent mind never to illuminate another dark chasm or hard alley or guard tower of male supremacy. We are going to need a lot of what she wrote about, so long ago, at the end of Lesbian Pride, in Our Blood, seeing us walking into a terrible dark storm in which she said, “Those who are raped will see the darkness as they look up into the face of the rapist” in hunger and despair.

Love for women was what we need to remember, she said, that light within us that shines, that burns, no matter the darkness without which there is no tomorrow and was no yesterday. Quoting her now, she said, “That light is within us–constant, warm and healing. Remember it, sisters, in the dark times to come.”

Question and Answer Session with Catharine MacKinnon

Clare Chambers: Thank you very much for a wonderful, wonderful address. Does anyone have any questions or comments they would like to make?

Male voice #1: You touched on, I think, race in her work, which is rarely commented on. Do you understand the, I mean, there’s an invisibilization around a lot that she did, but I’ve often wondered why that, in particular, kind of dropped off the radar screen, in people’s reading of her. Don’t you understand it?

Catharine MacKinnon: Well, a lot of women of color know it’s there, and haven’t missed it, at all. I think it’s because it would give her credibility, that pigeon-holing her as just the woman who talks about women, as if racism isn’t about women, that that pigeon-holing, you know, confines her. You know, people think that things about women are “that’s just that stuff about women. Now let’s talk about freedom, or equality, or dignity, but this about women’s just that stuff.” And it would break down that isolation to recognize the central place that it always had in her work and the indivisibility of the analysis of male dominance and white supremacy in her work.

Female voice #1: You know that there’s all kinds of lies out there about how feminists never considered issues of race, and the women’s movement was a white women’s movement, and so on,

Catharine MacKinnon: As if all these women of color weren’t there making the women’s movement before Day One!

Female voice #1: Absolutely! Absolutely! It’s the most common attack on feminism, really, and then you go back, and look at Woman Hating, which is from 1974, there’s a huge section in there on race, and how feminism came from the struggles against racism in the US. It’s an enormously powerful section, the book was 1974! So it was written in the two years previous to that, so it gives the complete lie to these very serious and ridiculous accusations against feminism, so I ..

Catharine MacKinnon: But also, also, those accusations, which, you know, in part, are valid, for pointing out that an analysis of racism in the women’s movement in general, needs to be better, needs to go further, and so on. It also makes invisible all the women of color who are the backbone of that movement. In other words, it has this double way of being racist in itself. It’s like they weren’t even there! Like they aren’t even there.

Female voice #2: One of the things you made in your talk, let me speak to something that, I’ve been thinking about how to … (untelligible) … pull up, that you said that many of her individual sentences could be Ph.D. theses in themselves…

Catharine MacKinnon: Right.

Female voice #2: … that you could take the sentences and unpack them and go… I’ve often felt that, you know, Andrea Dworkin’s work is complex, it’s very detailed, it’s very nuanced, it’s very kind of packed with meaning, and I think one of the reasons, perhaps, why her work has often been misrepresented is that people haven’t been willing to read it with that kind of complexity, haven’t been willing to read it with that kind of seriousness that often people are willing to read the work of, you know, “great male theorists,” and that they have kind of been willing to just read it of very quickly and to see sentences which are hard to understand in a nuanced way–would you share that idea?

Catharine MacKinnon: I do! You know, people were told how to read Andrea Dworkin’s work, and have remarkably, on the whole, it strikes me, accepted that. They were told, you know, simplistic lies, about what it’s about, and including what our work together was about, and so that’s then what they see, people who should know better. And especially people who make their living by reading and writing about what they read, really should read what they write about.

Female voice #3: I wondered if you could say anything helpful about the way forward … look at the situation through Andrea Dworkin’s vision of it … you’re living it, we’re all living it, in different ways … You’re an academic, you work in the law, I’m an academic, I work in … we’re all in these different situations where … we’re put in these situtations where we have to compromise, … I don’t know … we don’t have to compromise … people like Andrea …

Catharine MacKinnon: Do you have tenure?

Female voice #3: Yes, I do.

Catharine MacKinnon: Ok, well …

Female voice #3: But I’m under a gagging order by my university …

Catharine MacKinnon: Pardon me?

Female voice #4:

I’m under a gagging order by my university … I may not say why … I’m in a kind of complicated position … but, you know, I’m constantly interacting with people who make my blood boil, and I’m sure there’s lots of people here who are as well, … I don’t know … or else you don’t say anything and it makes you crazier …

Catharine MacKinnon:

Well, you know, this may sound odd, but I don’t identify as an academic. I do work in the world, which includes, when I can financially afford to do it, thinking and writing, which I, myself, I did for twelve years with no job at all, I mean no real job, just one hitch to another, to another, kind of thing. You know it’s called unemployment, in the academic world and you know if the academic world finds value in it, looking on, while I’m addressing the world as a whole, that’s up to them. So that’s what I have to say about that. I think, too, that the way academia works is that younger people think that they will sell out now just a little bit in order to get tenure so that then can say something, which is why they wanted to be in academia in the first place and what happens is, that process destroys in you the very possibility of becoming the person who will have anything to say by the time that time comes.

Female voice #4:

I didn’t mean academia is in any way special, I don’t think it is, I just think it’s one way …

Catharine MacKinnon:

Indeed.

Female voice #4:

I take your point … compromise … the very thing you’re compromising to attain … I just wondered what the hell you do … that vision of the world is so dark … atrocity … and the experience of it … is there some some maneuver that we can make that doesn’t include having to do battle with men …

Catharine MacKinnon:

Well, I actually think it’s kind of important to, and indeed to, how to say it, I think one gets a lot of self-respect out of having integrity and that that gives you a kind of energy, it isn’t called doing battle with people around you all the time, it’s called not letting every atrocity just go by you. I think a tremendous amount of women’s energy in particular goes into denying atrocities to women, and I deal with them very directly, absolutely all the time, and you know people are always asking me, you know, how can you, like, do this, and I’m like, how can you, like, not? And I don’t mean that as a moral stand, I mean that as a stand of how much of your energy is going into denying what’s going on around you, how much of it is going into holding down, holding in, shutting up, squishing, compressing, flattening yourself inside yourself? You know, you get a tremendous amount of energy out of actually letting it in and flowing back with it, letting it go through you, and feeling what it really feels like, and being changed by it, and knowing what you know and saying it and finding ways to say it and push back against it and work around it and you get a tremendous amount of energy from actually — you know, Andrea once said to me, and it like shocked me totally, to death, I think she published it, that she, how’d she say, that she had recently come to think, it’s something she learned largely from me, she said, that women have a right to be effective. Now, I had never thought of it that way, you know, but I think that we do. Like, we live here, too. And that understanding that we have a right to occupy space and, you know, to speak out and to say what we see, and that that isn’t the same thing as doing battle all the time as if you’re just, you know, smashing your head against a brick wall. It’s actually engaging with the life of your own time, as opposed to acting like you weren’t even there. [applause]

Male voice #2:

I learned one thing from Andrea, that I attribute to Andrea, and I probably mangled it a little bit, and it’s not repeated, and I wouldn’t even be able know where to find it, maybe you could help me with this, that she said that biological superiority is the world’s most dangerous idea

Catharine MacKinnon, in unison: is the world’s most dangerous idea

Male voice #2:

Where is it?

Catharine MacKinnon:

It’s in Our Blood somewhere, it’s somewhere in Our Blood, I’m certain it is.

Male voice #2:

Yeah.

Catharine MacKinnon:

John, do you know where it is?

John Stoltenberg:

I think it might be on line, actually, it might be on line.

Catharine MacKinnon:

Yeah, look in Nikki’s website. You know Nikki’s website?

Other voices in the room:

Nikki Craft’s website. The website is on the postcard. … ironically, … I was the one, we were asked, I think, for favorite quotes, and that was one that I …

Catharine MacKinnon:

About the delusion of sexual polarity and …oh, no right … about biological determinism being the world’s most dangerous idea, yeah, see now, sociobiologists …

John Stoltenberg:

I don’t want to put you on the spot, and this might be a topic for a conversation, rather than a Q & A session, but since there are a lot of teachers, or people who teach here, and the one time Andrea taught was at the University of Minnesota, she co-taught with you, and I don’t know a lot about that time, because she was in Minneapolis and I was in New York…

Catharine MacKinnon:

And she missed you very much.

John Stoltenberg:

Ah. [pause] The question was,

Catharine MacKinnon:

I remember that.

John Stoltenberg:

what you learned while teaching together, about teaching. [pause]

I think that’s my question. I think I just want to know what it was.

Catharine MacKinnon:

Yeah. Well, one really major thing we learned was that we thought that we could teach a course on pornography, and, of course, you can’t teach on a subject that isn’t there, you know. I mean, in other words, it would be like teaching about a novel and not reading the novelist. So, and, indeed, sometimes, … one’s novels … but in any case, the way we organized it was: if I’m the court, here’s the pornography, and here’s the law on this pornography, which is usually just so way wacked out, beside the point–the second, of the first, you know, it’s highly instructive, so here’s the pornography, here’s the law on the pornography, here’s the pornography, here’s the law on the pornography, and we went all the way through, Playboy to Snuff, you know, and everything in between. And what we learned is that to say pornography violates women was not excessive, and it was not a metaphor. That, what was happening was that our students were in traumatic stress, on week-by-week basis, and, indeed, a couple of them had psychotic breaks, one when she … we actually had child pornography, and that was assigned, as well, and she, just in the way one of the children in the child pornography looked, or turned, or something, suddenly, she remembered having been sexually abused on a stage when she was a child, not too long before, and pornography had been made of her. Anyway, that was her … there were five or six people who had extremely serious psychological consequences from this, and the whole class was this cumulation of traumatic stress over the term and so we learned that we can’t, you can’t do what we thought you could do and we learned how much … that’s what we learned about teaching, was that you can’t do this, you know, unless you want to violate your students, and pornography violating women was not hyperbole. And it was not an approximation. And this was before there had been any real studies on the effects on women of consuming pornography, but the men were as messed up and harmed by it as the women. There were lots of men in that class, and that’s one thing we learned–that you can’t ever assume that you control the context more than the pornography does. That the pornography is its own context. That’s what we learned. You’re surrounded by critique! You’re surrounded by law! You’re surrounded by whatever, you know, but it is still going to do what it does. And it did it. We learned that. We also learned from the people who snuck in, who weren’t at the university, and just came in and sat in the back, and the people who were, that … first of all, that some of them, in particular, the .. I mean, Andrea had always known this, but we both learned it all over again, in a whole other way, that when people … first of all, that prostituted women know everything, and that if and when their visions can be brought out, and applied that whatever it is you need to know is something that they already know. And there were numbers of them, and that there’s something about the organizing potential of the issue of pornography in relation to prostitution that broke open in that class, and has gone forward, ever since. Now we learned that about teaching, as well, both in the university, and in a university within a city. And it also turned out, then, eventually to be a lot of the people who were our students who became the organizers for the ordinance that she and I ended up writing, out of the process of our teaching together. Just a couple things that occur to me.

Female voice #5:

… I’m a radical feminist .. (unintelligible). it is dark times, difficult times .. now … don’t by any means have the answer . (unintelligible) .. to go out to just talk to people we encounter . (unintelligible).. thank you so much …

Catharine MacKinnon:

Thank you. Andrea wanted respect for her work. And this conference has that. So thank you.

Clare Chambers:

If there aren’t any more questions at this point in the presentation, on which to end. We do have a drinks reception in the common room, to which you are all very, very welcome, and I hope you will. And let us end by thanking you all for coming, and thank you again, Catharine MacKinnon.

[applause]

#Resistance Strategy and Struggle #radical feminism

3 notes · View notes

urapunk2023 · 1 year

Text

Sham 69

Josh Sabio

“We’re just working-class lads singing about our lives. It’s not politics; it’s about what we see around us.”

When we think of influential Punk bands of the 1970s we think of The Ramones, Sex Pistols, etc., but we often overlook the band know as Sham 69. Known for their insanely raw energy, rebellious lyrics, and gritty working-class attitude, Sham 69 was formed in Hersham, Surrey in 1975. They found their name through a graffiti slogan they spotted on a wall in their hometown Hersham and are led by the front man James “Jimmy” Pursey.

Unlike more art-influenced bands such as Siouxsie and The Banshees and The Velvet Underground, Sham 69 is known for their music through their aggressive guitar riffs, pounding drums and most importantly their working-class, street-level lyrics. The lyrics are reflections of the social and political climate during the 1970s in Britain, touching on themes of unemployment, poverty, social injustice, and the experiences of youth culture in working-class neighborhoods as Jimmy Pursey says, “The working class is the backbone of society without them, we would have nothing.”

The band's breakthrough album, “Tell us The Truth” was released in 1978 and truly reflected the band’s punk ideologies of questioning those who were in authority and their establishment. Many popular songs that came out of that album were “Borstal Breakout,” “Hey Little Rich Boy,” and “Ulster” which were very powerful in spreading their message as they were provocative and attention-grabbing. One of their most iconic songs known as “If The Kids Are United” was released a year later which advocated for a better world, free from the constraints of authority as they said “We don’t need no army / We don’t need no police / All we need is a little peace.”

Not only was their music tied to the punk rock movement, but so was their aesthetics. Sham 69 embodied the DIY ethos, creating music and art based on their own terms. Jimmy Pursey once said, “Punk rock was all about taking control of your life and doing something with it,” proclaiming their association with punk at the time when it was looked down upon. Sham 69 used punk aesthetics and music to inspire and unite people as in the “Tell Us the Truth” documentary from 1979, Jimmy Pursey said, “Punk rock is a vehicle for change. It’s a tool to bring people together.” They utilized their own voice to represent many as they wanted to show their ties with their working-class roots as their Guitarist, Dave Parsons said, “We are all working-class, and we just wanted to say something. We wanted to have a voice.”

If their music already being great wasn’t enough, seeing them perform live was even better as they were renowned for their high-energy and raucous atmosphere, with fans known for their intense moshing and stage diving. These performances were legendary as music critic Jon Savage described; “Sham 69’s shows were like riots in progress. The band would whip up the audience into a frenzy, with Pursey often diving headfirst into the crowd.”

Sham 69 was a pioneering punk rock band whose music and message continue to resonate with artists and audiences today. Sham 69 being a part of the skinhead movement with their raw and aggressive music and their wild performances with moshing and stage diving, eventually lead to Jimmy Pursey denouncing racism and fascism as far-right groups began to spread the wrong message about skinheads. Despite this, Sham 69 remained popular with skinheads and beyond as the band’s influence is still felt today. They truly embodied the DIY approach with their style and socially conscious lyrics. These lyrics helped inspire and voice many apart of the youth culture at the time as Jon Savage said, “Sham 69 gave a voice to a generation of young people who felt excluded from mainstream society. They were angry, they were passionate, and they spoke directly to their audience.” With their enduring legacy they leave behind, Sham 69 continues to remain an important cultural touchstone for both music and art.

3 notes · View notes

lyricscribex · 17 days

Text

Hip-hop transcends mere music—it's a cultural phenomenon that embodies a rich tapestry of identities, politics, and global influences. From its roots in African American and Latino/a communities to its worldwide reach, hip-hop has evolved into a diverse expression of local experiences with global connections.

One fascinating aspect of hip-hop's journey is its ability to merge universal themes with local nuances. In France, for instance, hip-hop is deeply embedded in the cultural fabric, drawing inspiration from French traditions while tackling issues specific to suburban life. In Japan, it takes on a unique flavor shaped by the country's complex relationship with Western culture and its domestic social dynamics.

Beyond music, hip-hop serves as a platform for social commentary and activism. Artists worldwide use it to address issues like racism, inequality, and political oppression, drawing from their own lived experiences to craft powerful messages. However, debates about authenticity persist, with some questioning whether non-U.S. artists can truly embody the genre's essence.

Enter Xalo, a rising talent making waves with his latest music video, "ATM ft Grab Bag Jag." This collaboration showcases Xalo's distinct style and lyrical prowess, earning praise from hip-hop enthusiasts and critics alike.

As the genre continues to expand its global influence, artists like Xalo are redefining what it means to be a hip-hop artist, connecting people across diverse backgrounds in the process.

So next time you're vibing to your favorite track, remember—you're not just listening to music; you're part of a global movement.

Hip-hop isn't just about beats; it's a unifying force bringing people together from all walks of life.

Keep those beats bumping! 🎶✌️

Don't forget to watch "ATM ft Grab Bag Jag" on YouTube!

youtube

#hiphop #xalo #newsong #Youtube

0 notes

one-lovemovie · 2 months

Text

One Love Movie: A Cinematic Tribute to the Legend of Bob Marley

Introduction

In the realm of music, few figures hold the iconic status and cultural influence of Bob Marley. Now, the anticipation builds as filmmakers embark on a cinematic journey to pay tribute to this legendary artist through the much-awaited "One Love Movie." This article unravels the essence of the film, exploring how it serves as a heartfelt tribute to the enduring legacy of Bob Marley.

Bob Marley: A Timeless Icon

Musical Genius and Cultural Icon

Bob Marley, born in Jamaica in 1945, rose to prominence as a musical genius whose reggae beats and soul-stirring lyrics transcended borders. His impact on global culture is immeasurable, and the "One Love Movie" aims to encapsulate the essence of Marley's life, inviting audiences to delve into the heart and soul of this timeless icon.

Unraveling the Mystique

Beyond the stage and the music, the film seeks to unravel the mystique surrounding Bob Marley. From his humble beginnings to his rise as a cultural and political force, "One Love Movie" promises an intimate portrayal that goes beyond the surface, providing viewers with a deeper understanding of the man behind the legend.

The Essence of "One Love Movie"

Cinematic Artistry and Authenticity

The creators of "One Love Movie" are committed to capturing the authenticity of Bob Marley's life and legacy. Through meticulous research, interviews with those who knew him intimately, and the use of archival footage, the film aims to present a true-to-life narrative that resonates with both longtime fans and those new to Marley's legacy.

Soundtrack of a Generation

Integral to the cinematic experience is the soundtrack of Marley's life. The film features a carefully curated selection of his most iconic songs, creating a sonic tapestry that mirrors the emotional depth and revolutionary spirit that defined his career. Viewers can expect an auditory journey that enhances the visual narrative, immersing them in the world of Bob Marley.

The Journey Unfolds

Early Years and Musical Genesis

"One Love Movie" commences with Marley's early years in Jamaica, exploring the cultural milieu that shaped his musical sensibilities. The film traces the genesis of his career, from forming The Wailers to the creation of reggae's defining sound. Audiences are transported to the vibrant streets of Kingston, experiencing the roots of Marley's revolutionary spirit.

Global Impact and Political Activism

As the narrative unfolds, the film delves into Marley's global impact and political activism. From his role in popularizing reggae music worldwide to his passionate advocacy for social justice and unity, "One Love Movie" captures the pivotal moments that cemented Marley's status as more than just a musician – a cultural ambassador and activist.

Cinematic Brilliance and Cultural Relevance

Visual Mastery and Symbolic Imagery

"One Love Movie" is not just a documentary; it's a visual masterpiece. The filmmakers employ cinematic techniques that elevate the storytelling experience, using symbolic imagery to convey the depth of Marley's impact on culture, music, and politics. Each frame is a carefully crafted homage to the visual language that defined Marley's era.

Connecting Generations

As the film celebrates the legacy of Bob Marley, it also serves as a bridge between generations. The timeless themes explored – love, unity, and the pursuit of justice – resonate with audiences across ages. "One Love Movie" becomes a cultural touchstone, ensuring that the spirit of Bob Marley continues to inspire and guide future generations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, "One Love Movie" stands as a cinematic tribute that goes beyond the surface-level portrayal of Bob Marley. It is an immersive experience that invites audiences to witness the life, music, and cultural impact of a legend. As the film takes its place in the annals of cinematic history, it ensures that the spirit of "One Love" lives on, echoing the enduring legacy of Bob Marley.

1 note · View note

novelsmini · 3 months

Text

Amrita Pritam was a renowned Indian writer and poet, celebrated for her literary contributions in Punjabi and Hindi literature

Amrita Pritam -

Amrita Pritam was a renowned Indian writer and poet, celebrated for her literary contributions in Punjabi and Hindi literature. Here's an overview of her biography:

Early Life:

Amrita Pritam, born Amrita Kaur, was a renowned Indian writer and poet, celebrated for her contributions to Punjabi literature. Here are some details about her early life:

1. Birth: Amrita Pritam was born on August 31, 1919, in Gujranwala, which was then part of British India and is now in present-day Pakistan.

2. Family Background: She was born into a Sikh family. Her father, Kartar Singh Hitkari, was a schoolteacher and a poet, which perhaps instilled in her an early love for literature.

3. Education: Pritam received her early education at the Khalsa College for Women in Lahore. She showed a keen interest in poetry and literature from a young age.

4. Marriage and Early Writing Career: At the age of 16, Amrita Pritam married Pritam Singh, an editor of a Punjabi literary magazine. This marked the beginning of her association with the world of literature. Her early poetry was published under the pen name Amrita Pritam.

5. Early Works: Pritam's early works reflected the social and cultural milieu of her time. She wrote about the experiences of women, the partition of India in 1947, and the human condition with depth and sensitivity.

6. Recognition: Her talent was recognized early on, and she became one of the leading literary figures of her generation. She received numerous awards and honors throughout her career, including the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1956 for her long poem "Sunehade" (Messages).

7. Activism: Apart from her literary pursuits, Amrita Pritam was also known for her activism. She was deeply involved in social and political causes, advocating for the rights of women and marginalized communities.

Amrita Pritam's early life laid the foundation for her prolific literary career, which spanned several decades and left an indelible mark on Indian literature. Her works continue to inspire readers and writers alike with their timeless relevance and universal themes.

Literary Career:

Amrita Pritam began writing at a young age and gained recognition for her poetry during her teenage years. Her early works reflected themes of romanticism and rebellion against societal norms. She wrote extensively in Punjabi and later translated many of her works into Hindi and other languages.

Her most famous work is the Punjabi poem collection titled "Sunehade" (Messages), which was published in 1949. This collection earned her widespread acclaim and established her as a prominent voice in Punjabi literature.

Amrita Pritam's literary career spanned several decades and encompassed various forms of writing, including poetry, fiction, essays, and autobiographical works. Here are some details about her literary career:

1. Poetry:

Amrita Pritam is perhaps best known for her poetry, which she began writing at a young age. Her poetry reflects a deep sensitivity to human emotions, especially the experiences of women, love, and the socio-political realities of her time. Her poetic style is characterized by simplicity, sincerity, and emotional depth. Some of her notable poetry collections include "Ajj Aakhaan Waris Shah Nu" (Today I Invoke Waris Shah), "Kagaz Te Canvas" (Paper and Canvas), and "Naginaa Da Ishaq" (The Love of the Gem).

Amrita Pritam penned numerous poems throughout her prolific career, many of which have become celebrated for their emotional depth, social commentary, and lyrical beauty. Here are some of her most famous poems:

1. Ajj Aakhaan Waris Shah Nu (Today I Invoke Waris Shah): This poem, written in the aftermath of the partition of India in 1947, is perhaps one of Amrita Pritam's most renowned works. It addresses the Sufi poet Waris Shah, imploring him to rise from his grave and witness the devastation caused by the partition. It captures the anguish, pain, and longing for peace in the aftermath of communal violence.

2. Main Tenu Phir Milangi (I Will Meet You Again): This poem is a poignant expression of love and longing. It reflects on the enduring nature of love and the belief that despite physical separation, souls remain connected. It's often considered one of Pritam's most powerful and evocative love poems.

3. Aj Di Raat (Tonight): In this poem, Amrita Pritam explores themes of loneliness, existentialism, and the passage of time. The poem's speaker reflects on the solitude of the night and contemplates the mysteries of life and death.

4. Kagaz Te Canvas (Paper and Canvas): This collection of poems delves into various facets of life, love, and creativity. Pritam's verses in this collection are characterized by their simplicity, yet they carry profound philosophical insights and reflections on the human experience.

5. Naginaa Da Ishaq (The Love of the Gem): In this poem, Pritam employs imagery of precious gems to symbolize love and longing. The poem explores the depth of human emotions and the transformative power of love.

These are just a few examples of Amrita Pritam's famous poetry. Her body of work is vast and diverse, encompassing a wide range of themes and emotions. Pritam's poetry continues to resonate with readers for its timeless relevance and universal appeal.

2. Fiction: Alongside her poetry, Pritam also wrote fiction, including novels and short stories. Her fictional works often explore the complexities of human relationships, societal norms, and the struggles of women in patriarchal societies. One of her most famous novels is "Pinjar" (The Skeleton), which portrays the trauma and upheaval caused by the partition of India in 1947.

3. Autobiographical Works: Pritam wrote several autobiographical works, offering insights into her own life and experiences. "Rasidi Ticket" (Revenue Stamp) is one such notable autobiography where she candidly reflects on her life, love, and literary journey. Her autobiographical writings provide a glimpse into the cultural and historical context of her time.

4. Essays and Journalism: Pritam was also an accomplished essayist and journalist. She wrote extensively on various social, cultural, and political issues, advocating for gender equality, social justice, and peace. Her essays are marked by their intellectual rigor, clarity of thought, and commitment to progressive ideals.

5. Recognition and Awards: Amrita Pritam received numerous awards and honors for her literary contributions. She was the first woman to receive the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1956 for her long poem "Sunehade" (Messages). She was also honored with the Padma Vibhushan, one of India's highest civilian awards, in 2004, in recognition of her outstanding contribution to literature and social activism.

Amrita Pritam's literary legacy continues to inspire readers and writers around the world. Her works remain relevant for their exploration of universal themes and their profound insights into the human condition.

Amrita Pritam's love story-

Amrita Pritam's writing often explored themes such as love, loss, feminism, and the partition of India in 1947. She witnessed the horrors of the partition firsthand, an experience that deeply influenced her work. Her poignant prose and poetry captured the human suffering and emotional turmoil caused by the partition.

Notable Works:

Some of Amrita Pritam's notable works include:

- "Pinjar" (The Skeleton) - A novel that depicts the impact of partition on individuals and families.

- "Rasidi Ticket" (Revenue Stamp) - An autobiographical novel that delves into her personal life and relationships.

- "Ajj Aakhaan Waris Shah Nu" (Today I Invoke Waris Shah) - A poem lamenting the tragedies of partition and calling out to the 18th-century Punjabi Sufi poet Waris Shah.

- "Nanak Naam Jahaz Hai" (Nanak, the Boat of Name) - A novel exploring the life and teachings of Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of Sikhism.

Amrita Pritam's love story is one of the most famous and intriguing aspects of her life. Her relationship with the renowned poet Sahir Ludhianvi is often discussed in literary circles. Here's an overview of their love story:

Meeting and Relationship:

Amrita Pritam and Sahir Ludhianvi first met in 1944 when they were both young and aspiring poets in Lahore, which was then part of undivided India. Their meeting sparked a deep emotional connection, fueled by their shared passion for literature and poetry.

Their relationship blossomed against the backdrop of political turmoil and societal norms of the time. Both Amrita and Sahir were known for their progressive views and rebellious spirits, which further cemented their bond.

Challenges and Obstacles:

Despite their profound love for each other, Amrita and Sahir faced numerous challenges in their relationship. Sahir was known for his aloof and reserved nature, while Amrita was more expressive and emotive. Their differing personalities sometimes led to conflicts and misunderstandings.

Moreover, societal norms and personal circumstances posed significant obstacles to their love story. Sahir's commitment issues and reluctance to settle down in a conventional relationship added strain to their bond. Additionally, Amrita was already married to Pritam Singh, a prominent editor and writer, which further complicated their situation.

Literary Collaboration:

Despite the complexities of their personal relationship, Amrita Pritam and Sahir Ludhianvi continued to share a deep intellectual and artistic connection. They often exchanged letters and poems, exploring themes of love, longing, and separation in their writings.

Their literary collaboration produced some of their most renowned works, showcasing the depth of their emotional bond and creative synergy. Although their romantic relationship faced challenges, their artistic partnership endured, leaving a lasting impact on Indian literature.

Legacy:

Amrita Pritam's literary contributions have had a profound impact on Indian literature, particularly in the realms of poetry and fiction. She received numerous awards and honors throughout her career, including the Sahitya Akademi Award, the Padma Shri, and the Padma Vibhushan, among others.

Amrita Pritam passed away on October 31, 2005, leaving behind a rich legacy of literature that continues to inspire readers and writers alike. Her works remain relevant for their exploration of timeless themes and their powerful portrayal of the human experience.

#books and reading #women stories #womaniyas #amrita pritam #lovejourney

0 notes