Time to live up this Blog's address, I suppose!
To: LT
Sent: 8:20 a.m.
You've nailed something that the veganfreaks board has also been talking about recently: the idea of radicalism versus reality. You have a lot of separate points here, so I'll try to address each one equally.
First of all, I think three young girls in pink tutus and stockings, with nice legs, would be labeled Generally HAWT in Cap Hill. Might be a little too much for some, but certainly nothing you wouldn't wear to a party or a club, and nothing that any good hipster boy wouldn't find a complete turn-on. Even with the combat boots. So your three superficial reasons for getting dressed---status, style, attractiveness--are all fulfilled. They're claiming their status as hipsters on parade. They're certainly stylish in their minds. And they're attracting the boys (or possibly girls) that they would like to attract. Is their status, style, and attractiveness only aimed at a certain minority? Sure. But only compared to the world's population--in CapHill, the subset of the population they're playing to is the majority!
Do they still look a little odd compared to the rest of the kids on the street, including you and me? Yes. So they ARE going for a little shock value. But not to prove a point. They're looking for attention--which they get, even if people don't stare. And I think that's the start and end of their choosing to wear tutus on the street.
Onto the reasons to use shock value for a REAL reason from a political and historical perspective:
I don't remember specific instances of using "shock value", in this context, in the racial struggle. Sitting in the wrong part of the bus, okay, but I think that would be labeled passive protest more than shock value. The Black Panthers were more violent than shocking. And the "racial struggle", as you put it, is definitely still going on today--but I think you're referring to the civil rights movement. Which would be about..well, generally considered to be no more than a couple of decades. I believe. (Quick fact check on wikipedia: about 1960-1980, they say.) Or I guess what I'm saying is, the only part of the racial struggle that could be considered to have possibly used shock value is the Civil Rights Movement. And I don't remember any specific instances.
Have we talked about the comparison between the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement before? You might know then that some prominent black people have protested the use of "civil rights" to apply to the gay rights movement, as the Church is a much stronger influence in the black community than it is in the white community, (partly because black people are, hey, the minority, so it's easier to have a unifying force) and therefore a lot of bible-thumpers don't agree with homosexuality, etc etc, therefore THEIR movement cannot be THE GAYS movement.
(Side note into feminism: much like civil rights, although the movement is no longer active to the point of bra burning, we are by no means done. Another side note that's more opinion and less fact: Condeleeza Rice is the third most powerful PERSON in the country. Probably on a list of top most powerful fifteen or so people in world. If that's not proof of progress of both the civil rights AND the feminist movements, then I don't know what is.)
(On the other hand, the U.S. is one of the few, if not the ONLY, developed country in the world that has never had a minority or female leader. Most UNDEVELOPED countries have us beat already. This is a sign that yes, we might have made some progress, but less than countries with half our GDP.)
SO.
Shock value. The more I think about it, although I can't think of any specific civil rights instances, one might argue that the shock of the movement is already covered by, well, vision. After all: racism exists because you can VISIBLY SEE that someone is different. And also with the feminists--we are visibly women, although all women aren't feminists, and neither are all feminists women. (It might also be said that not all, say, black people, are civil rights activists, and neither are all civil rights activists black people. Or even minorities.)
So I argued myself out of the idea that the civil rights movement didn't use shock value because they didn't need it. And I guess they did, anyway--banners, posters, etc. Those can be pretty shocking.
But nothing as picturesque as burning your bra, or even as unifying as the Stonewall Riots.
So! Movements DO use shock value, to varying degrees, to accomplish goals. Onto the value of shock value.
Again, this is a radicalism versus reality argument--we're having an argument about the value of voting on the veganfreak boards. And the short answer is, because I'm getting carpal tunnel and need to get SOME work done today, is: you need both. You really do. The value of shock is just that: SOUNDBITES. I already mentioned it: it's picturesque. It's easy to publicize. It gets the word out.
Do people turn up their noses at the idea of bra-burning? Yes. Did that explode the women's movement into the forefront of American consciousness? Yes. Is that the first thing people think of when they think of the women's movement? Often, yes. Is that a good thing? No, because it's so radical--the women's movement isn't really like that! It's just a bunch of females who have the remarkable idea that genders should be treated equally according to the law--everyday feminism, so to speak, and the inspiration for this blog's title. But does the very EXISTENCE of the women's movement ensure change, however slowly and surely? HELL YES. Women like myself, even those of us who are pretty confident in our abilities, sleep a little better at night knowing we can't be harrassed at work. Do the lecherous factory guys staring at my ass think twice about heckling because of sexual harrassment suits? YES. And THANK GOD. (There is a point to all this, and I'm getting to it, I swear.)
Onto the same-sex marriage argument: The Gay Rights movement can be a little more pushy and radical--and stubborn, even, and they are--because they're already riding on the back of these two movements. (Civil and women's). The idea of civil rights, EQUAL rights, for EVERYONE regardless of color, gender, or orientation--has already been planted in people's minds. Why?
Because of shocking events. Black people storming the capital, looking for equal pay. Women burning their bras in front of the Miss American pageant. These things live on in people's heads.
Because change, real change, at least in this country, is like a wedge. It's like a PLASTIC wedge that's being used to split a chunk of granite. You manuever the wedge in, and you tap in with a hammer, and then you slip a wider block of plastic to hold the new gap, and you drive the front, smaller wedge just a little farther in. And then you fill up the new gap with more stays. And then you drive the front wedge in just a little farther. To use the feminist movement as an example, people like Gloria Steinem are the front wedge. (And I guess people like Andrea Dworkin, although most of the time I pretend she doesn't exist.) And girls like me are the stays. And the more of us there are, the farther in you can drive that front wedge.
Tap, tap.
Summary: shock value is used in varying amounts by almost all movements. Could we use small steps instead? We could, and we do, already! The public just doesn't see it because all you see is that front wedge of radicalism. And WITHOUT that front wedge...
I think the granite would close up on the stays.
