A letter to my bike thief

Dear Bike Thief,

I have no idea what your motivations were.  Well, that's not entirely true, I have my own speculations fueled by anger and frustration that, I'll be honest, don't really give you the benefit of the doubt.  Although, seeing as I'm the wronged party here, I'll go ahead and enjoy myself with the speculation.

I'm writing you because I think what bothers me the most about this situation is that to you, the thief, the thing you took is just a bike; an object, a means of transportation, and/or some quick cash.  To me it was much more and this fact is something that I don't believe you'll ever fully understand.

Let me give you some background.

First, the practical stuff.  The bike was originally purchased at a Sportcheck for $400 and it was a birthday present from my parents who wanted to support my efforts to incorporate the development of some healthy habits.  Recently, after storing the bike for the winter, I dropped $350, or so, on it to get it back into working order: new brake & gear cables, new rear wheel, new chain, and a full tuneup.

Now, for the more personal stuff.  When I was growing up I was never particularly athletic but there was one class in Jr. High gym that I actually kind of enjoyed as was fairly decent at: The Mountain Biking Unit.  Our gym teacher would take us around the city's bike trails during gym class and I seemed to always find myself near the front, enjoying the experience, and always wanting to go faster.  That is, until, the cool kids noticed this fact and my investment and decided to make fun of me, effectively closing off any further development of this budding interest in mountain biking.

Fast forward until about three years ago when I found myself moving to the neighborhood of Crescent Heights and realizing that this particular neighborhood offered easy access to some very nice bike paths that would take me straight to work.  So, with this new information in mind, I headed to my parents place to pick up my bike (you know, the one you stole) which, had spent the first two years of it's life with me collecting dust in either my parents garage or my building's parkade.  In my defense, biking to work just wasn't a practical option for my during that time given any development that might have given me the confidence to find a way to make it work, was stunted all those years ago in Jr. High Gym Class.  Damn cool kids, why can't you just let people like things...

Anyways, I dusted off my bike and began riding it to work on a daily basis.  This, on it's own, was a nice treat; no stress from driving the morning or evening rush hour, no being crammed into an either too hot or too cold C-Train, and no 40 minute walking commute.  My biking commute to work was 15 minutes along the beautiful Bow River Pathway.  My biking commute home from work forced me to deal with the Centre Street Hill which was, as you might imagine, initially very daunting and intimidating.  However, after a few weeks of dealing with that incline I began to get used too it and it soon just became part of the ride home; which was a nice little personal accomplishment.

Then something started to happen.  I started craving more interesting trails.  The descent down the hill in the mornings became invigorating.  I began to want more.  I began to reacquaint myself with that feeling I had lost in Jr. High; that feeling of liking something and being half-decent at it.  I began to pursue more interesting trails around Calgary, incorporating longer routes to, or from, work as my daily exercise routine.  Once it became apparent that the Calgary Commuter Bike Paths would only ever be so interesting I began working out at the Eau Claire YMCA, which was an easy stop between my home and work, and looking into actual Mountain Bike Trails.  Not long after looking into this I embarked on a quick camping trip with a best friend to Tunnel Mountain with the intention to tackle some Mountain Trails.

I only ever managed that one trip after rekindling my interest in Mountain Biking but I was resolved to finally, really pursue this interest.  I began researching Mountain Biking techniques on Youtube, began familiarizing myself with the culture, and starting to get a sense of the skills I would need to develop for next season.  My workouts at the Gym became much more than a daily exercise routine, now I was thinking about what I would need to do to be able to handle the Mountain Trails more effectively.  My gym attendance has always been a hard habit for me to establish but I kept trying and this was, for the most part, because of my interest in Mountain Biking that my bike (again, the one you stole) helped reignite.

And this is what you stole.  What really bothers me about all this.

You stole a symbol of a personal interest that I didn't know I was still connected too.  You stole something that was helping me live healthier or, at least, work towards a healthier lifestyle.  You stole something that I was connecting too.  You stole something I cared about.  It was so much more than just a bike to me.

I needed you to know that.

Sincerely,
Joseph McGuire

P.S. You suck.

Serial Experiments Lain: Episode 01 - Weird

Well, right off the bat I think this is definitely something that’s in my “stuff I like” wheelhouse.  From the opening minute right through to the closing minute of this first episode Serial Experiments Lain presents a very dream-like yet tangible world that puts one into a defensive or neutral state while they wait for the story to unfold.  Much of what were shown are things we are certainly able to identify but each of them is a little off or we’re made to feel a little unsure about them in different ways.  Shadowed areas are dotted with spatters of blood (or paint).  The soundtrack and audio ambiance move back and forth between eerie or unsettling sounds and muted human speech as it fades from relevance.

The episode opens with a collection of scenes that provide a snapshot of what looks to be a fairly typical evening in a downtown Japanese metropolis with the one exception (may not be an exception when you really think about it) of a yet unnamed girl, clearly traumatized, moving through the city.  As she braces herself against the wall of an ally we see a group of girls seemingly pointing and laughing at this particular girl which gives us the impression that bullying is at least part of the trauma she’s been dealing with.  As more snapshots of the downtown world flash before us we soon find the distraught girl standing atop a building looking out over the hustle and bustle.

All up until this point we’ve had no dialog or flashbacks to explain what is going on, who this girl is, why she’s distraught, and why she’s found her way to the top of a building but at no point do you feel out of the loop; with quick visuals, excellent animation, and eerie presentation we’re given just enough to be able to come up with a pretty good idea of what’s going on.  As well as what’s about to happen.

As she stands atop the building words flash across the screen with “you don’t have to stay here” being the most poignant bit and when we come back to the girl there is a smile on her face.  The smile is one of bliss but just as everything in this world is presented with a taste of uncomfortable uncertainty this “bliss” also feels a little off.  Just as this fact crosses the girls mind and she feels that sense of bliss it appears to be enough for her to decide to take that final, fatal step.

Time, then, pushes forward and we are taken to a point in time that is a few days later and find ourselves introduced to Lain, our protagonist, who is just arriving at school.  The eerie feeling continues which plays a role in maintaining a sense of consistent discomfort that is enjoyable in a strange way.  Lain is moving through the world in a semi-trancelike state; she is disconnected from those around her and those around her appear to disconnect from her as well.  I never got the impression that this was a deliberate, malicious attempt to ostracize Lain but a product of her Jr. High age group who are all trying to figure out themselves amidst the chaos of adolescence.

As Lain takes in the classroom atmosphere we become more and more aware of a crying classmate somewhere in the back of the classroom.  What is interesting about this scene is that we are fully aware of this crying student at the very beginning of the scene but as we’re following Lain and seeing the world through her eyes we don’t really focus on it until Lain focuses on it.  Then, even when Lain turns her attention to this part of the classroom the delivery of information is slow, sloppy, and delivered rather tersely by another student.  This explanation happens both in a conversation Lain has with another student and through some things a different student is saying while attempting to console their crying classmate.

What we end up finding out is that the student who had been crying started to receive emails from the girl who jumped from the building in the opening after her reported death.  Lain, who appears to take this information in stride, offers to reaction either way; does not dismiss the information and does not scoff at the potential of it being truth.  From how Lain is presented to us this doesn’t seem out of place as Lain’s disconnection seems to have more to it as the world seems to be fading in and out of what Lain can see throughout the episode.  People move from being distinguishable to being silhouettes to fading out completely while information presented to her, on a chalkboard (for instance), is only visible for a short while before it fades.

Lain is informed, before the scene changes to Lain’s home, that more than the crying student have been receiving mail from the girl who died, who’s name we learn is Chisa Yomoda, and that Lain should check to see if she’s received anything as well.  After getting a glimpse of Lain’s mum (an apparent overworked and disillusioned mum), Sister (who’s a bit older and disinterested in family), and Lain’s Dad (who is shown as being only interested in family in terms of having met some social obligation), Lain turns on her home computer to find a message for Chisa waiting for her.  Lain, again, takes this new information in without any hesitation and begins communicating with Chisa through email.

The episode closes when Lain is again at school and staring at a fading chalkboard when, instead of fading completely, there is a message from Chisa, potentially, asking Lain to meet her on the web.

At this point I’d like to say that Lain’s parents are especially interesting in that they appear to have very little interest in each other yet have no real ill will guiding that lack of interest.

Lain’s father is lost in a yet-to-be-explained world of computers/internet as he’s more excited about a new network (I would assume) card than he is about seeing his family.  He appears to be involved in family only in terms of having seeing it as his social obligation to start one and provide for it, leaving the day-to-day managing of it to Lain’s mother.  Lain’s mother is lost in what appears to be a state of emotional numbness; whether she’s numb from a life she never got to live (forced into marriage), numb from a family who is distant from her (forcing her to shut off her emotions), or numb from some other, yet unknown, trauma is all still up in the air.  However, any of this uncertainty surrounding the parents is presenting in a very tantalizing way; one wants to know more but we’re going to be made to wait and see how these things unfold.  Lain’s sister wasn’t given much space and the only piece I really got from her was that she’s playing out a very stereotypical older teenager mentality; emotionally distant, thinking she’s got it all figured out, and sees the family as a burden on her burgeoning social status.

Overall, the first episode has had a really strong opening and I hope, as the series continues, that the storytelling follows the same style.  Information is communicated to the viewer in indirect ways that feel obvious and are, in a strange way, very clear but never feel too on-the-nose; the viewer is drawn in to paying attention but doesn’t have their hand held.  I’m very interested to see what comes next and it took a great deal of willpower to avoid powering through the first disc.  If you have any thoughts or comments on the episode or my review feel free to share them.

Uncensored, feminist-lens thought for this episode: “why the fuck is Lain naked and in the fetal position for the ending credits?! What?! You needed to get some industry standard sexualization in but couldn’t fit it into the story?! JFC…..I wonder why it was hard to fit in? Could it have something to do with it being completely useless and sketchy as fuck bullshit that we’re better off without? Fuck.”

Anyways, thanks for reading!

Serial Experiments Lain / Anime Reviews

So I would call myself an anime fan but I would also want to point out that it's always been a bit of a infrequent part of my life.  When I do find anime I can enjoy I rarely watch anything else then when whatever I was watching comes to an end it'll probably be months before I find something else I enjoy.  It's been going on like this since I first encountered the stuff when I rented Ninja Scroll at the local Rogers Video many years ago.  What always contributed to my hiatus' from anime was some of the fandom surrounding the genre and there not really being a community of folks I could identify with when it came to discussing a particular show.

Now I'm not going to sit here and brood all over the place with some "woe-is-me, no one thought about anime like I did" kind of egotistical garbage.  What bothered me was that regardless of what anime it was, there always seemed to be something off about any show I watched; whether I enjoyed it or not there was always something that bothered me that I couldn't quite put my finger on.  Since learning about feminism and it becoming a lens that I view the world through I'm now able to understand a little better what was so off about the anime I watched.  For the most part, anime is like any other industry in a patriarchal world, sexist and misogynist at it's core with much of it so normalized that many creators and fans barely recognize it.

Since gaining a feminist lens some anime I watched in the past doesn't quite stand the test of time while others I've found seemed to be stories I could appreciate more.  Even the anime that I enjoyed that didn't quite hold up in terms of it's use of harmful or tired tropes ended up being fun things to go back to because it was so easy to see through some of the stereotypes playing out in them; situations where you're fully aware how cliched a particular storyline or character is but are able to enjoy it none-the-less.  As Anita Sarkeesian reminds everyone who watches her videos says: "it is possible to enjoy a piece of media while still being critical of it."

With all of that said, I think I'm going to start watching some favorite anime (as well as some anime I've been meaning to watch) and write some reviews/thoughts about what comes up for me.  I hope to be fairly frequent about it but I can't promise anything unless I find some sort of routine for these.  For my first series I will be watching/reviewing:  Serial Experiments Lain.

For nearly as long as I've been watching anime Serial Experiements Lain has been an anime that's always been on the "to-watch" list but has, amazingly, never been something I've got around to actually watching.  So I think it's fitting that my first one of these would be something that I've been putting off for so long.  I'll move through the series, probably writing something about each episode, with my feminist lens fully active and see what comes up.  I fully welcome questions or thoughts or challenges from any who feels inclined to do so.  Not sure where this will go but I suppose we'll see.

Some thoughts on Paris

I've been trying to formulate some thoughts on the recent events in Paris and the following media tidal wave of articles, commentary, and editorials that have filled my social media news stream.  I've been encouraged by the fact that many people have been reaching beyond the mainstream news wire articles and have been pointing to the fact that the tragic events in Paris a few days ago were not the only tragic events in recent days.  What troubles me is that much of the discussion is centered on othering the people who have chosen to commit such violent acts as it does each time humans commit such large scale acts of violence against each other.

What I would like to say in the aftermath of all of these recent tragedies, specifically about the events involving human choices, is that the source of this violence is nothing we haven't seen before.  Recognizing that these people who have carried out these attacks as being people who do not represent any kind of majority is important but we have to be careful not to put them into a category that hints at them being unique, one-off extremists.  What must be in place for someone to commit an act of violence against another is a firm belief that what they're about to do is justified and okay.  To get there one must find a way to dehumanize the person or group of people they're preparing to commit the act of violence against.

Make no mistake, the ingredients of dehumanization and justification that motivated the decision making process for those who carried out the attacks in Paris, Beirut, and Baghdad (as well as for the many other violent acts committed that did not make the news) are also present in our own communities.  Those same ingredients are a factor when our government openly declares that an official inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is "not on their radar."  Those same ingredients are a factor when our media tries to place the blame on people of color who have been the victims of police brutality.  Those same ingredients are a factor when a judge openly blames a person who experienced a sexual assault that they're the one at fault.  Those same ingredients are a factor when our society as a whole believes that violence against women is "just the way things are."  Those same ingredients are a factor when People of Stature (professional athletes, actors, etc) are not held to the same level of accountability the rest of us would be.

Those same ingredients are a factor in every instance where one person is deciding to commit an act of violence against another.

The repetition is intentional because too often the link is not clear and putting theses kinds of violent acts into their own containers only contributes to a society that is tolerant of violence.  It is also important to be clear that this kind of dehumanization and justification does not just manifest out of thin air, it is the product of attitudes and beliefs that inform a persons world view as they come up and into their own sense of who they are.  These attitudes and beliefs are informed by a multitude of factors that include, but are not limited to, our peer groups, media, educational systems, the communities we're born into, our own degrees of privilege, our own willingness to self-educate, and so on.

My only ask here is that we all put energy into not only sending our positive thoughts to those who have recently experienced violence but into continuing that push to challenge and change the harmful attitudes and beliefs that contribute to the dehumanization of others.

How mainstream media erases social justice progress

I can't really put into words how much the attitude of "this world is too politically correct these days" or "people really can't take a joke any more" bothers me; it's like trying to explain a colour or emotion to someone.  The closest I can really think of, and it's more of an explanation through example, comes from Byron Clark who ran a little experiment, replacing the term "political correctness" with the phrase "treating people with respect" and showed how off-base political correctness critics are with their comments (a link to an article about this is here).

What I want to write about today, however, is more on how this sort of dialog players out in mainstream media and how I see it ultimately harming any progress that has been made in any social justice movement.  I have seen it play out the same way regardless of what the context is although my primary exposure to this whole thing is around trigger warnings and sexual violence since that's what was my entry point to the social justice movement.

Recently, Amy Poehler's TV show made a very tasteless and harmful joke about child sexual abuse (a link to the article is here) and many people, rightly, turned to social media to voice their frustration.  Now comedy is, and has been, a very touchy topic because apparently there are people out there who think that because we're supposed to laugh at this stuff that it should fall outside the realm of critical analysis.  Part of this, I would imagine, has to do with the fact that comedy is very closely tied to a very normal human need for laughter; there are a fair amount of examples out there of laughter being tied to positive overall mental health.  Moreover, who we find funny and what we laugh at tends to be unique to an individual so critical analysis of whatever it is we're laughing at can feel like a critical analysis of us as individuals.  With that said I'd like to bring in what Anita Sarkeesian has said, repeatedly: it is possible to enjoy a piece of media while still being critical of that same piece of media.  Also, if you find yourself getting defensive because a comedian, show, or piece of media is receiving criticism I'd ask that you check in with yourself and do a little self-exploration into where that is coming from.  After all, you're not the one receiving the criticism, the piece of media you consume is, so there's something else that's really bothering you and I would suggest it has something to do with your own privilege being challenged.

Getting back on track.

Amy Poehler has taken some heat for what happened on the show and I believe that criticism to be completely justified.  "Jokes" about child sexual abuse, sexual assault, or any sexual violence should not be something mainstream media employs as a tool to build character, create suspense, or raise the proverbial stakes in their stories.  Sexual violence, in general, is something that many people have experienced and seeing it trivialized in popular media can being triggering, traumatizing, and provoke victim blaming.  Sexual violence can be shown but a great deal of care and thought must be involved to ensure that what is being depicted is being done for clear and honest reasons, while also ensuring that what's depicted does not sensationalize or eroticize sexual violence.  From what I understand, the child sexual abuse comment in Poehler's show was meant as a way to communicate to the audience that the comic in the show is a particularly inept comic.

If the only way you can communicate that a fictional comic is "inept" is by having them make a "joke" about child sexual abuse then I don't believe you're a very good writer.  This goes for any depiction of sexual violence in the media as well, if you can't make a joke, develop a character, or move a story forward without employing instances of sexual violence I would suggest picking a different career.

Unfortunately, mainstream media loves this sort of thing because it can take legitimate criticism of a very harmful mistake by producers and use it to dismiss and belittle the criticism and it's source.  Amy Poehler has been anointed by mainstream media as a feminist icon, which is something they like to do, and like every other "leader" mainstream media has picked out for feminism they tend to evaluate the merits of feminism by this person and this person alone.  So long as their successful the narrative tends to ignore the feminist support or involvement and does so until this "leader" makes a mistake in some form or another.  Then one of two things tends to happen: they dismiss the leader entirely or they dismiss the criticism as being a sign of a movement being "too sensitive" and prone to "toxic infighting."

With the articles cited above, we're seeing the latter of the two in this case.

Mainstream media is happy to tow the social justice movement's line so long as it's not making anyone uncomfortable (like Emma Watson's UN address, for instance) but the moment some critical dialogue is needed mainstream media cuts bait and, ironically, overreacts.  A large aspect of the feminist movement, as well as any social justice movement (although it's hard to honestly separate them if we consider intersectionality), is accountability.  Accountability is key because it means that at any given time care is being taken to acknowledge privilege and take steps that are being motivated by an intention to dismantle systemic oppression.  Accountability isn't, however, a fun or comfortable thing; in fact, if comfort and fun is a factor then I'd argue that accountability isn't precisely being consciously involved.

Unfortunately for social justice movements, the nuances of accountability are not sexy and are hard to fit into short, punchy, "click-baity" headlines or quick buzzfeed-esque, pseudo-social consciousness raising articles that mainstream media rely on so heavily.  If they can't summarize it in two minutes they're not interested.  Moreover, if they can paint it as in-fighting then they can dismiss the movement and maintain the status quo in one fell swoop.  So, once again, we are seeing critics of Amy Poehler's show being written off as "over-sensitive" and the movements they represent being dismissed as childishly unfocused.

I've often wondered how certain things like how the feminist movement has carried this stigma of being entirely about "man hating" through the decades, well I would have to say that situations like this seem to offer, at least, a partial explanation.

I would encourage anyone who's seen articles on this situation to look a little deeper and read a little more about the criticism.  Mainstream media is lying to you and they are attempting to manipulate you, there's a much more important discussion we need to be having.

You're not edgy for being deliberately offensive and you're not oppressed for being called out either

Two things have sort of sparked this post:

1) An article on the Escapist extolling the virtues of the latest Doom trailer ended with an overly self-righteous cavalcade of word-smithery worthy of any soap-box: "Make exceptions. Make statements. Make what you dream about making, and do it unapologetically. Bring it on, DOOM."

2) An article on the Escapist by a video game reviewer that gleefully exclaims that it's fun to deliberately offend people because the people being offended aren't saying anything worthwhile anyways.

The fact that both of these are coming out of The Escapist, a video game site that I've generally appreciated and respected up until now, is particularly alarming but not all that damning, after all these people only write for them and their views don't necessarily represent the views of the entire organization.  I hope.

Anyway, while both authors have undoubtedly patted themselves on the back for their righteous defense of privileged creators and developers for their right to offend people-righteously defended the already defended against those evil, sensitive, emotional people who would have the audacity to not agree with material that was deliberately meant to offend-I want to address this frustratingly annoying stance that by publicly stating that a piece of media has problems people are being oversensitive and missing the point.

First, though, can we appreciate the irony of getting defensive when people are offended by something that was deliberately meant to offend.

Doom, the game and developers, were not trying to be subversive.  As the author of the article details, and I agree with him on this, Doom was never meant to be a sunshine and rainbows game; it was violent then, it's violent now, that's Doom.  But to hold it up as some righteous crusader for all that's good in video games, as some kind of subversive piece of art, is an embarrassing exaggeration of what Doom is.  I played Doom, hell I grew up on it, and there is a great deal of nostalgia I have for the franchise even though I'm not particularly inclined to play the latest iteration.  I'm not particularly inclined not because the violence has turned me off, but rather my tastes have changed and it, simply, doesn't interest me any more.  It's not my cup of tea, but it's not like I think they should stop making it the way they want to make it.  Want a game to be exceptionally violent? Go for it, but you must realize that not everyone is going to like it and you must realize that some of those people are going to, guess what, *through cupped hands* say that they don't like it.

Seriously, for all the claims being directed at social justice/PC people being "too sensitive" it sure seems like we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

Doom's gameplay trailer was excessively violent, it was intended to be that way because that's what the game is and it's okay that people have pointed that out.  It's also okay to ask the question as to whether or not a game needs to be that violent.  I can assure you that if it were the case that excessive violence wasn't commonplace for video games, and that there were a plethora of other types of games out there, there would be less of an impulse to ask why there needs to be yet another extremely violent game like Doom.  The criticism is a product of the greater discussion in the gaming industry, not an attempt to censor the creators of that specific game.

Doom is not a subversive work of art, defiantly resisting an oppressive regime, because the majority of games are violent, but I seriously don't think the developers of the game had this in mind when they chose to show that trailer or create the game.  Doom can be Doom, but don't try and put it on this righteous pedestal because you don't like people asking for the industry to do better in terms of the variety of games it offers

Which brings me to my second point in this rant.

Being deliberately offensive is also not something that falls into the category of righteousness either.  Again, if you set out to be deliberately offensive then you can't seriously be surprised when people have some negative things to say about the thing you created to be deliberately offensive.  I can't believe we have to walk through this but people are not being over-sensitive when you deliberately set out to offend them, they're just reacting the way people do when someone has deliberately offended them.

In the wake of Charelston (since drafting this there's been another, Lafayette Louisiana) and a devastatingly long list of mass shootings we do not need a game that sensationalizes those types of events and turns them into entertainment; mainstream news outlets do enough of that as they give us wall-to-wall coverage with intermittent advertisements.  We do not need media that deliberately picks at open and healing wounds (real and societal) whose creators misuse "Freedom of Speech" rhetoric to defend their actions.  There are ways to create media that poignantly addresses violence, hatred, and oppression in our world and I would state that we need media like that if we're going to make any kind of change.

However, if you're going to incorporate a topic like mass shootings or sexual violence against women (Game of Thrones is referenced) you can't be careless in how you present it in your piece of media because there are people out there that have experienced what you're using.  That is the criticism that's routinely getting ignored in this discussion, that it's more about how the violence is being sensationalized and eroticized than the violence existing in the first place.  Game of Thrones deserves the criticism it's getting and the amount of fans choosing to opt out of the series because it carelessly used violence against women as a sensationalized plot point as well as choosing to be dismissive of critics.  "Hatred," the game (I use the 'game' term loosely), deserves to be called out because it sensationalizes a horrifying act that is happening in regular intervals in today's society.


Oh and if you're one of those people who is upset that people get mad at you for playing "devil's advocate" on serious social issues like violence against women, systemic racism, heterosexism, cissexism, or any other area of society that we need to be better, then I'll just leave you with this:

So much for #safestampede

So I seem to be following rather decent people on facebook as I had to find out through someone else that apparently there's a video being shared around that depicts a woman and two men apparently having sex.  Since it's surfaced many people have been gleefully sharing the video and/or slut-shaming the woman in the video relentlessly.

If you're one of those people, congratulations, you're the worst.

There's many, many different things wrong with how this situation is playing out.

First off, we have no idea whether or not consent was given for any of the people in the video and I don't seriously believe anyone in the video agreed to be filmed or for it to be shared to facebook.  So, again congratulations, if you've shared or slut-shamed the woman in the video you've shared a video of a sexual assault or shamed someone for experiencing a sexual assault.

Of course it is entirely possible that everyone in the video consented to the experience, although I still don't get the sense they would've consented to being filmed or having the video shared on facebook.  If it is, in fact, true that there was consent and you're one of those people who have shared the video or slut-shamed the woman in it, congratulations: you're still the worst.  Thinking less of a women because she engages in sex with two partners is textbook slut-shaming and says more about you than it does about her.  Putting women's sexuality on a pedestal, creating some ridiculous notions of purity/virginity, and shaming them if they deviate in any way from our expectations is one of the ways our society tells women that their bodies are not their own and their sexuality is not their own.

How come you're not targeting the men in the video?  Why are they allowed to participate in something like this freely without criticism while you direct all your shame towards the woman?  If it's because you think it's okay for men to behave in this way and not okay for women to behave in this way, well then you're sending the message to men that they are not responsible for their sexual behaviors and that they have much more leniency when it comes to their sexuality.

If you've shared this video or slut-shamed the woman you're demonstrating why we needed something like #safestampede in the first place.  Sexual harassment and/or sexual assault have been stampede staples for a long time (well technically they've been staples of our society in general but that's for another time) and part of the reason we've come to this point is deeply connected to how society holds men and women to very different standards when it comes to sex.  From "boys will be boys" when people are growing up to slut-shaming women when they're older, we've routinely sent the message to male-identified people that there is a great deal they can get away with and that even if they do step out of line they're going to not experience the same level of scrutiny.

Those men people who chose to sexually harass or assault others during stampede that we have in mind when we tweet #safestampede are men people who have likely grown up with certain sexist views normalized and they've likely not been challenged on those views when they've expressed them.  Sexual harassment occurs because men people believe that women are dressing for them and, because of this, they feel they have a right to then comment on her body and dress.  Slut-shaming this woman validates the idea that women's bodies and sexuality are up for public scrutiny while their own bodies and sexuality are not.  We needed #safestampede because we didn't hold men accountable for their behavior and we needed #safestampede because of how women's bodies and sexuality are policed.

But now? After having engaged in some communal slut-shaming? Well, it'll be hard to take that hashtag seriously...yay us!