Dear Anger

Dear Anger,

I am learning from you. We've had a tenuous relationship in the past, I know, but I'm finally starting to realize how much I need you in my life.

When I was younger, I thought you were all blind rage, that you would burn through me with the intensity of a sun. And all too often you did, because I let you. Fueled by adrenaline and the flood of hormones racing through a body that wasn't quite ready, you would scream through my mouth, releasing fire that would rival the breath of a dragon. I'm so sorry for that. It wasn't healthy for either of us.

And other times you've been cold and vengeful, an icy core stabbing into the pit of my stomach. Aided by a sick kind of malice, you plotted, petty and cruel, sowing rocks into a garden because we didn't feel like we could grow in our own. That wasn't healthy for us either.

But now that I'm starting to understand you. I need your righteous embrace. You've grown and changed with me over the years and you're no longer the hair trigger part of myself that I once feared. I've found Empathy who uses your fire to forge the sword of action.

Every time I dance, you express yourself through movement, enacting a kind of violence that creates something beautiful for anyone who watches. Your fire pushes me to fight, not recklessly but for the justice our world so desperately needs.

Every time I stand up for what I believe is right, you urge me to push past my discomfort. You see the need for change that I don't see on my own.

People often use that Star Wars quote:


 "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

And while that may be true in most cases, I am no longer afraid. I am no longer afraid of you and I am no longer afraid of myself, because you, Anger, stem from a place of Love. An all encompassing Love that has room even for the darkest souls because it knows they too deserve a chance at redemption.

Anger that there is wrong in the world. Love that seeks to remedy it.

So in a way, I want to say thank you. Thank you for staying with me and teaching me the lessons I've needed to learn. I will not hold onto you, but if we cross paths, I will embrace you and listen to the message you're trying to tell me.

Much love,

Danny

Responding to The Good Men Project and the Friend-Zone

I was recently reading a post by the Good Men Project that basically said the Friend Zone exists for both men and women and sucks to be on the receiving end.

Only somewhat respectfully, I disagree. The Friend Zone should not exist (though, as I'm about to explain, not for the reasons usually cited). Looks like, I'm on blogger now, and I'm still going to talk about this with fairly heteronormative language. I apologize, but it's also a far more prevalent problem in the straight community than the LGB and I'm mostly addressing men.

“The Friend Zone” creates an ontological state (way of being) that completely ignores the wants and needs of other person. “I am/have been Friend-zoned” vs. (as one of the top comments puts it) “He’s just not into you” or “He’s only using you for ______ (usually sex)” for the woman’s counterpart. I want to point out the imbalance in agency implied by this linguistic difference. In both instances, it’s about the man and his feelings, and I think this is a dangerous double standard for the socialization of youth (especially young men). The reason many feminists and those against the concept of a “Friend Zone” react so strongly is that it ignores and marginalizes (most often) what the woman involved wants. It’s not even an option to be talked about, and that’s a problem.

I also don’t like this article because it doesn't propose any kind of solution beyond an overly simplistic “give the friends a chance.” Why not teach young men how and why they should overcome their fear of rejection in talking to women? Why not teach young women to recognize when their friends are interested in them and make themselves abundantly clear that they aren't interested and have no interest in being pursued? Why not set an example by moving ourselves and our discourse to more productive line of thought? Like I’ve said in other posts, let’s use our influence as supposed adults to teach the next generation good communication rather than quibbling amongst ourselves over something that is clearly becoming damaging for both sides.

In other posts, I've talked about how the concept of the Friend Zone comes about because of a sense of entitlement caused by our societal impulse to tell men that if you work hard you can achieve anything. Apply that logic to objects of desire (women) who have autonomous desires that may not include you as the desirer, and we run into problems. If you apply yourself and pursue a friend with no success, it leaves you feeling weak and hurt and powerless and frustrated. Rather than letting this fester, we need to teach our youth to deal with that reality in healthy ways rather than continuing to project their desires on someone who is (at least currently) not interested. Respect that, especially when you interact with them. Or, and especially if they're using you, you need to get out of that situation.

I also don't like Friend Zone because it implicitly makes being a friend a bad thing. I understand that it doesn't feel like a good thing if it's not what you want, but to make it a bad thing devalues the meaning of friendship in general. This is unhealthy. 

Stop it with the Friend Zone shit already. And if you're so stuck on keeping the concept, at least redefine your language to be less damaging. 

In Which Danny has Opinions on MRM, MRAs and the Feminist Reaction as such.

First off, I'm a gay man. Why is it important that I start with this? Because as a gay man my experience is different than that of a woman or even a straight man. It informs and flavors my opinions and how I interact with the world.

Secondly, I work on queer and feminist projects. I say feminist projects because my work is to question certain patriarchal systems and modes of thinking that I find problematic in the world (a common enough definition of feminism), but as a man, I don't think "I am a feminist" is a blanket term it is appropriate for me to claim. I also don't think Men's Rights Activism or the Men's Rights Movement is at a place where I can get behind it  Rather than working in the capacity of a reactive movement against a movement that itself is already a reactive movement, you should be addressing the cultural problems that are causing them to react and looking at why they are reacting the way they do to better address the root of the issue. Your goal is gender equality as you see it, therefore rather than being anti-feminist, be pro gender equality.

Now that that's out of the way, here's my response to a post on tumblr. My contributions are in bold and I've italicized the bits I'm responding to.

I don't think the below shirt should exist because it is inherently polarizing and serves little use except to make MRAs angry. It's poorly made and does not adequately articulate feminist goals of gender equality. This is counter productive to the overall goals of both movements.


Click Here
Text (would be legible on actual shirt):
1. You have no problem with the gender wage gap. But you hate having to pay for dates.
There is no wage gap.

tl;dr  (in order) The wage gap is justified because women take more time off than men. The 77 cents per dollar statistic is inaccurate and based on faulty math. Women are paid less because they major/pursue careers in fields that pay less. Repeat. Same as previous with marriage and child-rearing.

In general I would normally disagree with linking to other tumblr posts (no matter how educated they may be) as source material, but the sources link to what would be considered academically qualified material. 

Okay, all of the above, fair points, now tell me why. Why is it a culturally accepted practice that women take more time off than men? Why do women choose "safer" job prospects? Perhaps this is because historically women have been told that they're weaker or that they're less capable in the work environment and have been socialized to accept this. Rather than being told you can be anything, they're told by the media and local cultural influences that they can be teachers and nurses and secretaries. The problem is still rooted in the culture and system that perpetuates this, just because you can use numbers to show that the wage gap as it is popularly portrayed doesn't exist does not mean there isn't still a problem in our society. 

2. You insist that it’s a scientifically proven fact that men are stronger than women. But you complain about society believing that it’s worse for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man.

Yeah, because there’s obviously no problem when violence in one direction is abhorrent to the general public but when it’s in the other direction, it’s acceptable…

Equaluhtee~

Violence against anyone is wrong. Based on the premise that if it is more culturally acceptable for women to hit men then any discussion or statistics regarding sexual assault will be necessarily skewed to ignore men who are survivors because they would be socialized not to report. Rather than infighting about who it's more wrong to hit, work on ending the culture of violence that allows anyone to act violence on someone else.

The problem that both statements are addressing is the belief that men are stronger than women. Physically and (implicitly as a result) emotionally. If you address that culturally propagated belief along with anti-violence work, the secondary part will resolve itself.
3. You believe that the age of consent is unfair and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with teenage girls. But when you find out that a teenage girl enjoys sex, you believe she’s the biggest slut in the world.

Mind showing an example of the first sentence? Honest request.

Honest request, honest answer: porn. Do a google search, the fact that porn advertised as "teen girls" and "barely legal" is a thing should be somewhat sickening in the way that it trains men to objectify younger women.

I'm not going to find specific examples of people believing/supporting the former statement, so I have no idea how widely held it is and would rather not search out those areas of the internet. I'm guessing that this statement is a reaction to memes like Pedobear. Which is supposed to be funny because it addresses issues that no right-minded person would act on. Personally, when it comes to rape and pedophilia I don't think it's ever okay to joke.

4. You hate when a woman automatically assumes that a man is a douchebag before getting to know him. But when you like a woman who likes another man, you assume he’s a douchebag just because he’s not you.

Maybe it’s jealousy and not thinking that someone’s a douchebag. There is a difference.

I agree with the commentary since I don't think the statement from the t-shirt adequately describes the double-standard they're trying to address: highlighting a personal dynamic that has been described as the "nice-guy syndrome" which in short is creating a sense of self-victimization because you are not the object of desire. This is an ego-centric behavior that happens on all sides of the gender spectrum. Jealousy can be a healthy feeling so long as it does not result in controlling behavior or language.

5. You believe that if women want equality, they should be drafted into the military. But you also believe that the military is not a place for women.

Again, requesting an example. 

From the 2012 GOP Presidential Platform. All of the points could be summarized as "We're okay with women (and gays) in the military as long as they don't get in the way of what we try to do." Well why do you think women will get in the way? Because (again) it's assumed they're mentally or physically less capable? Ask a woman who has actually served and I think she'll show you how less capable they are.

I could also make parallels to the rational behind Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that gay men don't belong in the military because it will hinder the working capabilities of straight men in the military (the same core belief that leads to the idea that straight men should be afraid of gay men in the locker room). 

6. You hate when women assume that men are like wild animals. But you believe that a woman who doesn’t cover up and make herself invisible to men is just like someone wearing a meat suit around wild animals.

Those would be the more radical MRAs, who, like radfems, really don’t give a shit about the other sex.
This is like me saying that you’re a feminist if you’re a hairy lesbian who wants to kill all men.

Despite how troubling it is, women assume men are like wild animals (violent and only interested in sex) because the majority of women who experience violence experience it from men and when they report or act in retaliation to that violence, they're asked by the legal system (court and police) what they were wearing. Don't believe me? Go to a domestic violence shelter or Slutwalk event and ask that to thousands of women who have had to live that experience. What a woman wears should have no bearing on her potential to be raped. If you believe it does, you are assuming the former statement that men are monsters because the two concepts are inseparable.

7. You hate the fact that men are bullied for not conforming to their male gender roles. But when you find out that a man disagrees with your beliefs about women’s rights, your immediate response is to try to emasculate him by comparing him to a woman as an insult.

Here’s a little something on that type of language and how it’s not misogynistic. It’s not saying that it’s bad to be a woman. It’s saying that men (and women) who are called such are lesser men/women.

Go follow the link and read what it has to say.

I'm not a fan of any of these pejorative terms no matter who uses them. However specifically regarding the final statement that "Feminine men are not women, they’re lesser men" why is feminine language and words that have highly female connotations beside their negative ones used to describe such men? Why are there not more terms that call out these men for being "lesser"It's precisely because the negative connotations of female-pejoratives have more negative associations than their male equivalents (cunt being a dirtier word than dick for example) that make this language misogynistic. If comparing a man to be like a woman is a bad thing because he is not a woman, it creates the parallel that suggests being a woman is a bad thing. Insulting someone by questioning their gender identity is misogynistic because of the systematic assumption of the power of men. It places being a man over being a woman both culturally and linguistically.

Even if you don't think this type of language is misogynistic (and I'm sure very little I say will change your beliefs if that is the case),  but you fall in line with the commentary above, you still find such language problematic for other reasons and why in hell are you not working to get people to stop doing it?

8. You hate when women assume that there are no nice guys. But you call yourself a nice guy and act like it’s a rare quality that should cause women to be all over you.

Because it’s not as if there are women out there who claim to want someone who’s nice while simultaneously claiming that there aren’t any nice guys out there, and then, when confronted with a guy who’s being nice, don’t give him the time of day, and then continue going on about wanting someone who’s nice and that there aren’t any nice guys out there.

It’s not that it’s a rare quality. It’s just that there are women out there who don’t own up to their words.

There are bad apples on both sides who don't know what they fucking want and don't recognize when something good is in front of them. If they're too wrapped up in their own bullshit to realize how much of a catch you are, MOVE ON, it's clearly not a healthy relationship for you anyway. It's not easy, but it might be necessary.

The problem with the friendzone is the rhetoric used to self-describe it. Feeling disappointed is fine but current rhetoric used by a lot of Nice guys is what makes this disappointment a problem by expanding it into a retaliatory self-victimization. The social narrative of the friendzone favors women, because our culture privileges the view that women are weaker and subservient. They're expected to pine and whine and want after a man. At the risk of psychoanalyzing a fictional archetype, the narrative of the Nice guy in the friendzone emasculates him. It makes him (as we discussed above) less of a man, which can often lead to problematic language used to describe him and overcompensation with regard to the object of desire.

The video linked herein highlights to me the emphasis of good communication skills. If the narrative that society tells you works to get the girl (or guy) isn't working, why are you still using the narrative society tells you to? If you're disappointed and hurt by someone using you and your "friendship" you're entitled to that indignation, but is it necessary to resort to gender-based pejoratives? In the language of conflict reduction, use "I" statements to express how you feel.

9. You hate when women assume that men just want to get laid. But when you find out that a man is a feminist, you assume that he’s just doing it to get laid.

This one, I won’t try to argue with, because I’m sure it’s happened before. Also, there are male feminists out there who only do it to get women (I’ve actually seen advice floating around about going into women’s studies classes just to hook up).

I think I'm living proof that it's possible to be a man and femin-ist without looking to get laid. But I'm also gay so I'm an outlier in this specific context.

Women assume men only want sex. MRAs disagree with this assumption. MRAs assume all male feminists want sex. The problem I see here is hypocrisy inherent in the middle statement. Even if it's happened before (and I'm sure it's happened before and is even happening), shouldn't as someone fighting for gender equality your goal be to shame those men for setting a bad example and living up to the assumption you disagree with rather than propagating that assumption? You're not doing yourself any favors.

10. You hate when women make generalizations about all men. But when a woman calls you out for being sexist, you claim that all men think like you.

How the hell is this relevant to the MRM and not just the response of guys who don’t wanna consider that maybe they’re being sexist?

This one's going to take me a second to parse out what's actually being said by both sides.

If I understand the original point correctly, it says that members of the MRM don't like women making generalizations about all men and when women call out (highlight, point a stick at) sexism, these men say that all men think like them (itself a generalization about all men). It's pointing out hypocrisy. Whereas the response says that men making such generalizations are reacting to the loaded term "sexist" as a means to justify their actions and not necessarily a reflection of the MRM.

This is one instance where I think both could be right. It is hypocrisy if men from the MRM make those kind of generalizations and there is a good chance that it is a reaction to being called out on your sexism. The latter is true both inside and outside the MRM when it happens. I'm reminded of that illdoctrine video on speaking about being racist vs saying racist things and how the discourse of calling someone out has to focus on the latter in order to prevent this kind of reactionary bullshit.
11. You insist that women should be responsible for protecting themselves from being raped. But when they follow the one piece of advice that actually works, which is being aware of red flags, you complain about them assuming that all men are rapists.

There’s a whole world of difference between thinking that all men are rapists and being precautionary. There are women out there who keep an eye out for red flags, and then there are those who are automatically jumpy just because crap, a man’s around! No, those women aren’t keeping an eye out for red flags. They’re being paranoid and sexist.

Paranoia, while not necessarily rational, does not make the actions of such women sexist. For a woman who has been raped or experience domestic violence perpetuated by a man (a fact that you can't tell unless you know the person and even then it's fairly sketchy), being jumpy might actually be a precautionary measure and survival mechanism. And considering that PTSD is fairly common among rape survivors, I would even go so far as to say sometimes being that kind of jumpy should be expected.  Rather than complaining about how women react to violence or potential violence, why don't we work to make the world a less violent place? Instead of calling feminists sexist for being afraid, why not work to give them fewer reasons to be afraid.

On Dealing with Impossible People: Guns and the Assessment of Need

• I made a statement about guns on Facebook while linking to an article about an outlandish statement made by the founder of "Gun Appreciation Day". My mom quoted part of what I said in a Facebook status. This is what happened:
• Original statement my mom quoted: "If you "need" a gun in your everyday life to feel safe and aren't in law enforcement, actively in the military or out hunting, you might want to reconsider how you live your life."
• Steven: If you go to a mini Mart for a soda and someone tries to rob you, are you saying it's my fault because I innocently went to grab a soda? Just food for thought.
• Me: And you can't see yourself protecting yourself from a robber with any means other than a gun? We as a society can't work to remove the need to rob by working to create jobs and social institutions that teach people they have other options than crime, thereby making everything safer?
• Steven: Nope, if I have the need to protect myself, it's by any means necessary. Ask a cop to stop armed robbery by not having a gun. Educating people does not make them apply what they learned. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Lazy people are going to be lazy, especially if they can get the same thing for less work.
• Me: Since the original quote specifically exempted law enforcement, I'm not going to argue that.
• In this country almost nobody "needs" a gun. Whether or not you want one or will use one given the appropriate provocation is up to you. If you "need" a gun to feel safe in your everyday life, you have much bigger problems to deal with in your life and and where/how you live that affect how you define feeling safe. In which case I pray for you.
• Steven’s comment that REALLY set me off: "I pray for you for being naive to the world. May it not get you in a situation that you unknowingly walked into in the best part of town and where you will have to eat your words or worse, pay with your life or someone in your family because the did not have their proper defense. BTW, 2nd amendment is the right to bare arms for the possibility of needing to over run your government if a tyrant is in office or if your government oversteps their bounds against the people of our country. History in school should have taught you this. Based on your statement, I wonder if the teachers of Sandy Hook would have liked to have a gun when the shooting happened. Even at that, I wonder if they should have considered their life choices before teaching there. Think before you speak!!!"
• Me: "While I hesitate to make any argument for or against authorial intent on behalf of someone who has been dead for over 250 years, it is well known that Jefferson had tyranny in mind when crafting the second amendment. And I think that such use against tyranny would count under "given appropriate provocation." But even then, this is not a NEED. You have the right to arms, but that does not mean you need arms. Let me repeat that, "right" does not equal "need."
• I also think the best defense is preventative (which biases my arguments). In the case of government, it means paying attention to current politics and seeing warning signs of potentially dangerous behavior. In the case of my personal home safety, it means finding somewhere to live where the likelihood of having my home invaded is low. It means knowing where I am. It means taking self defense classes so I can at the very least I know how to remain calm and hold my own if I am put into a painful situation.
• And how dare you bring up Sandy Hook like that and tell me to think before I speak. What happened in Sandy Hook was not part of their day to day life (a part of the original statement which keeps getting conveniently ignored). It was a special circumstance that arose because of a slew of causes including but not limited to a broader culture of violence, a healthcare system that is poorly equipped to deal with the mentally ill in effective ways, and an ineffective system of gun control that fails to properly address the kind of risk factors I just listed.
• None of them could have anticipated this and if they did see it as normal, they probably wouldn't have been teaching in a peaceful, affluent, suburban school where the chances of getting shot are fairly low compared to areas known for experiencing violence.
• Bringing that into this discussion was unnecessary and disrespectful to the people who died. Think before you speak."
• More response Pam: “Being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE". Our states and the armed people of those states have a right to protect themselves from the federal government when it decides to ignore the Constitution and violate the rights of the citizens. History shows us that the first thing an evil dictator will do, is to DISARM the people. After that, there is nothing that can be done to stop them without using arms. Give me liberty, or give me death. Freedom is worth fighting for. Ask anyone in our Armed Services. Think before you throw out the freedom many have died for....
• Steven: No Danny, how dare you!!! You are the one that said, "where/how you live that affect how you define feeling safe". Just because they felt safe didn't mean they were safe. Therefore, my argument is true... Carrying a gun is for instances that, although you feel safe, you may not be safe. The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, PERIOD!!! [False, false, falsity false. Remember those preventative measures I mentioned? Or how about working on fixing all the causes I mentioned as well. Oh, no? Guns are still the only way?] Think before you speak!!!
• Me: You could have made that point without bringing Sandy Hook into this. Don't blame me for bringing something up that had no place in the discussion.
• And Pam, yes, yes, but what does that have to do with anything I've said? I already said that the ability to protect yourself from a harmful government is a right everyone is deserving of. Please don't insult my intelligence by continuing to reiterate a point I agreed to (in addition to tired nationalistic quotes that are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand). The fact still stands that no matter how much of a right it may be this does not automatically make it necessary.
• Steven: Now you are insulting your own "intelligence". I made a point that you couldn't disagree with so you say it didn't belong. That's what people say when they get shown up. You are correct, you have the right to own a firearm and protect yourself and your home, but doesn't mean you need to. Let the criminal rob you at gunpoint and kill you and your family because you don't feel the need. Your choice, but I won't put my family in that same, potentially, dangerous circumstance. I am done with this conversation as it is impossible to rationalize with someone who is thinking irrationally. Have a good night...
• Me on Tumblr: Now, he’s right, I shouldn’t have ignored his point about guns and would have been much better served pointing out how it is still irrelevant (and disrespectful) it is to question whether or not the teachers at Sandy Hook wanted guns because they didn’t have them. The only reason to bring that up in a discussion in this specific way is to try to shame me. But by this point in the night I was tired and had been drinking and wished to end the conversation rather than go through the effort of pointing out how guaranteedly dangerous it is to carry a gun compared to how irrational it is to imagine a constant threat to safety great enough to warrant lethal retaliation when statistically (and given the increase in mass killings in supposedly safe areas this may be changing, which returns back to my other ignored point about structural changes for preventative measures) you will NEVER need it. 
• The logic here is faulty in that there is a direct causal link between not being “protected” and the likelihood of such an event occurring all on the slim chance of violence occurring. That sounds a lot like a form of paranoia which, as it has been displayed here, does not sound like a healthy reason to have a gun. You will never need a gun. Period. You will never NEED a gun in your day to day life if you aren’t in a profession that requires it and do not face imminent and constant threat to you or yours’s personal safety. You can have a gun. You can want a gun. You will NEVER NEED A GUN.
• If you do face such a constant threat to your safety (a situation that is likely precluded by racial, environmental and/or economic factors beyond your control, a topic I flat out refused to get into here, but which must also be addressed in creating the kind of preventative change I talked about above), you’re probably already rethinking your life and looking for some way to change/cope with your situation. My original statement still stands. And I'm glad we can agree that it is indeed impossible to rationalize with someone who is irrational.

In which Danny goes and sees Les Miz

Did I do that right? Les Miz? Les Mis? (an internet search) tells me that both work.

I finally went and saw this because my friend Erin works at the new Regal cinema in Bellingham. As my roommates and even cinephilic boyfriend can tell you, I very rarely go to the movies without it being someone else's idea (I'm more likely to watch Netflix or borrow one of the hundreds of DVDs Grace, Trisia, Sara and I collectively keep on our bookshelf). Also, Bellingham has trained me well and I find myself averse to the sanitized, corporatized, movie-going experience.

Give me something a little dirty and grungy and local. Or just local since all the ones I linked to are pretty clean that I've seen.

Spoilers contained after this point, you have been warned.

Ah, right, Les Misérables (it's French originally so it's not pronounced less miserable, in fact, judging from what I saw on a GIANT SCREEN with an amazing sound system, I would say that they're quite miserable. Google tells me it translates into English to mean "The Wretched"). That's what I was going to talk about.

I liked it. It was pretty. It was everything I've been told by the raving hordes of internet/theatre fans. Visually and cinematically, the level of detail they went into was mind-blowing. Anne Hathaway made me tear up... twice. First when she entered prostitution to earn money for her daughter, an unfortunately all too real struggle many women find themselves going through even now, and second when she died.

My natural sass and refusal to deal melodrama made it hard to take a lot of the rest of the characters seriously (see for reference English majors reacting to people who call Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet a love story without understanding the full implications of the actions within the play).

Yes, Marius, Cosette is a pretty blonde, but you haven't even met her yet. What in hell are you doing telling me you're completely in love with her?

Inspector Javert, what are you? Quit walking around on the edges of high places. Do you have a suicide wi-oh.

Eponine, the stupid boy doesn't like you, quit mooning ab-- oh well, nice hat, since you can't have him you're going to join in the revolution effort? As long as you believe in the same ideals of freedom and democracy, who am I to tell you not to join in.

And I know, some of you are reading this, probably thinking I missed the point. For one quick example: Javert is a conflicted man because all he's doing is his job (as Valjean points out to him repeatedly) for a system that the People are rebelling against. He offends our democratic backgrounds because he represents the staunch refusal to accept change, and enforces the law as it stands mercilessly and in ways cruelly. To borrow alignment language from DnD, I would call him Lawful Good/Neutral working for a system that is portrayed as having become Evil inasmuch as it no longer works towards the good of the people rather than maintaining the status quo.

I don't dislike the characters at all and I love (LOVE) the socio-political discourse at work. This is a revolution after all, dealing with a corrupt and unfair prison system. Highly appropriate given the current state of the world!

After the little blonde kid (never caught his name, wikipedia tells it's Gavroche) gets martyred, part of me was hoping it would lead to full insurrection, but alas, history proved otherwise and all the pretty boys died. Have I mentioned the eye-candy yet? Because it's sweet.

I'm told that the stage version with full musical numbers helps lesson the...angst (though that's not quite the word I'm looking for) as highlighted in the cinematic version. If I could watch it in mute, I would have been so much happier. I mean, when Cosette and Marius actually talk and there's butterflies flying around implying they're soulmates or Fantine dies and the flag behind her says "mort" which is French for "dead," I'm enraptured. And I'm sure Victor Hugo's original novel probably had none of the musical appeal of this adaptation.

Maybe this is a sign I'm not one to suggest musicals to (just a guess).