Here's another toy I will not buy for my son

Didn't you know? Crafting is only for girls, unless you are making heavy equipment. In that case, no girls allowed.

Zine Fest: Lessons in DIY and Gender

On the tail end of Generation X, I was just a little too young, and grew up in a town just a little to far from an urban center to take part in the riot grrrl zine hey day of my generation. Luckily, I got to learn about them in college, since Women's Studies loves a good DIY subculture. That meant that when I started learning about the larger punk rock scene through my husband, zines weren't a total mystery (You mean, you used to learn about new music through little stapled photocopies and had to actually write to someone to get cassette tapes through mail order? Whoa...).

Which is why I was at San Francisco Zine Fest this weekend. My husband is a rather good artist and all around creative type, and I think other people should get to find out just how awesome he is - you can do that here - so I helped him schlep and sell his zines and paintings and also helped out at the info table. I like helping.

Since the fest was in Golden Gate Park, we got a lot of foot traffic, which was great, not only because it meant we had over 1,200 people attend on Saturday alone, but it was my job to explain to folks just what the heck was going on. A lot of my interactions began with people in khakis asking me "What is z-eye-n fest?" So, I gave them a brief definition of zines and the ethos of DIY culture - it was kind of awesome.

All in all, the weekend was pretty darn awesome. We sold almost all of my husbands paintings (including all of the ones he painted while we were there), a bunch of his zines, supported other creators and traded for some pretty awesome stuff.

The most (sadly) shocking thing I noticed was that everyone there was really nice. There were a few strong personalities to negotiate, since not everyone let down their defenses, and as in any subculture there are "celebrities" that like to think of themselves as such. But, in reality, we are all still our self-conscious junior high selves and are excited when people think we are cool, fun or talented.

One of these talented people was Joey Alison Sayers. Joey creates a weekly comic, ridiculously cute paintings, hilarious t-shirts, and comic books. One of them, Just So You Know #1, chronicles her journey coming out as a transexual and her transition to living her life as woman. I think it is an amazingly moving and funny (yes, funny!) story, so you should go spend six bucks and buy it.

I read it while I was at the fest and one of the points she made was really driven home. In one of the chapters, she relates an experience at a zine or indie festival in which two (I'm assuming) guys come and talk about how they find her comics awesome. When they go to buy some they address the dude standing next to her who is selling other stuff. After correcting them, they get confused and walk away.

As I was reading this very page in Joey's comic, my husband was exploring the festival and trading for stuff (he traded Joey one of his paintings for her zine, since he is a total fanboy) so I was holding down the fort. Said fort was adorned with a GIANT yellow structure with a HUGE sign that said "TALL GUY."

I am neither of those things. Okay, maybe at 5'9" I'm kind of tall, but I very obviously read "gal" to most folks. However, more than once I explained to people that I was not the creator of the zines and paintings, it was that dude across the hall, head and shoulders above most other people in the bright orange shirt.

But, here is the thing. Because I am cisgendered it is totally okay with people for me to play with my identity. To quote Joey's comic (which you will see cause you are gonna buy it), "That's weird, right?"

Imperialism Is the New Chic

I am all for movements which seek to resurrect the art of the past, but there is a difference between acquiring things for their aesthetic value while ignorant of their history, and creating a living history through art. And no, I don't think decorating your Williamsburg flat constitutes "art." The New York Times, however does, thanks to its glowing portrait of hipsters who have a fetish for turn of the century antiques.

Granted, one of the lads profiled in the article does participate in learning how his fetish objects of choice were created: “I like to cook, I like to sew, I can fix things with my hands.” However, the pinnacle of this it seems is finding satin with the right selvage.

I may be nitpicking, but is is probably because there there is also a classism that is not being addressed - though that is no surprise considering the article was published in the NYT's. Restoration and creation are two very different things, and often the former is far more expensive.

This expense is underscored by the articles quick turn to the shops a few of those profiled are opening in hip sections of the city with designers that the author can name drop. This seems to be the point of the blog that one of the sisters whom the article revolves around, since she likes to discuss what was worn to an outing at Yale:

Details on Porter's outfit: Amish leather suspenders from ebay, boys' shirt from Rugby, tie from J.Press (purchased minutes before at the original location at 262 York Street), Equi Comfort riding pants from Dover Saddlery, shoes and bag, Prada.

I'm so glad they let us know that it was purchased it from the original store. However, this seems to refute the NYT's chosen expert (from the Museum of the Fashion Institute of Technology) who believes this aesthetic comes from rebellion:

“Authenticity is such a fed-up idea...But collecting these old things, it’s like there is an aura attached to them. It’s not some prepackaged product being foisted on you by a big corporation.

Whew! Good thing they are keeping away from those big corporations like Rugby, J. Press and Prada.

Moreover, they seem to be completely devoid of any deep understanding of the culture they are co-opting. In speaking about one of the shops, the proprietor says:

“The idea was to make this clandestine Colonial tavern,” he said, “the sort of place the founding fathers would have conspired in.” The look, he added, reflects his assumptions about their tastes, as refined Europeans living in a rough new world: “Taxidermy was a symbol of that wildness.”

The founding fathers were sexist, classist, racist bastards. Just the sort of lot I do not want to emulate.

But this ahistoricism isn't surprising considering the article describes the apartment of two sisters as echoing "W. Somerset Maugham’s last days of colonialism, Victorian memento mori and the Edwardian men’s club." It also has "a taxidermy collection that would make Teddy Roosevelt proud."

So,we have the epitome of insecure masculinity which would set the tone for United States nationalism, time periods which relegated women to the private sphere and confined them in clothing that would lead to an early death (which explains the memento mori), and the last gasps of widespread institutionalized racism and exploitation. Lovely.

Also, not surprising is the NYT's is incorrect in asserting that wealthy young New Yorkers are setting this trend.

Teach Your Children

I'm a big fan of the DIY crafting movement that has become mainstreamed recently, just in time for this nice recession of ours (more on that later). It has so many good things about it: it values creativity, it's anti-corporate, there is a nice strain of eco-friendliness to it, and it injects new value into many skills that were previously relegated to the feminine domestic sphere.

But then we get things like "Crafting for Boys."

Okay, I get it. In some crafting circles it's hard to find projects for men, and many attempts to fill that niche have been incredibly disappointing (really, Debbie? A stripper scarf?). But, sweater patterns for adult men, which often require different sizing and shape, are far different than projects for children. Until you hit puberty, a sweater is pretty much a sweater. It just takes a color change and some embellishment to gender it up.

But, when it comes to play, why do we continue to count tents and capes for dress up as something only in the boy realm? Even the author admits that many of these projects are for girls, too. And she even talks about using some of them as a child herself. So, obviously this early indoctrination of gender isn't a given, though some people would like us to think that it is.

So, okay, you have sons and we want to make sure all our kids feel special, but is reinforcing gender roles really how to make them feel that way? And besides, its a pretty short and slippery slope until we get to this nonsense.