This
article is not about The Craft --the movie this title is from. It's
about the image ---and being "the weirdoes." This line works however, because
no matter what else Witches and Pagans had to say about The Movie, almost
every one was concerned with the way the characters looked -- just as they
are about how any other Pagan looks. The movie was only one more catalyst
for folks complaining about freaks in the Pagan Community. It's one more
thing to throw at someone in an argument if they happen to be dressed "Goth."
Because the way Pagans dress seems to be a major preoccupation for other
Pagans.
In the Imbolc/Spring '98 issue of THiNK! Jane included in her article
"Pagans and the Press" "Dress conventionally and attractively ---you are
representing all of the Craft, not just yourself." She is correct that the
reporter will likely mention how you appear even if you do not get photographed
(and also if you do get photographed --as I've found from personal experience
---they'll milk it). She is not the first person to state this and won't
be the last ---it's a standard "how to meet the public/press" party line.
And in regards to speaking on what the reporter will report, I certainly
defer to Jane ---this is not to disagree with the statement, as much as to
give a different side of the story. The Pagan freak's side…at least
this very publicly Pagan freaks side.
It should also be noted, that while Jane's statement sparked me deciding
to do this article now…along with a recent Ricki Lake Show…this
is more in regards to the heavy duty Pagan Fashion Police who over the past
years have tried to dictate to the rest of us how we should appear. You can
find articles on this at some point in most Pagan magazines and rants on
message boards on the Internet (there was at one point, I haven't gone to
the boards in months so I don't know if it's still there, an entire folder
dedicated to this subject on AOL).
So the reporter is indeed likely to make an issue about how you appear --and
s/he will know it's something that is likely to catch the reader if you are
not "dressed normally" or for that matter if you are. Likewise the reporter
may twist anything you say. This is not to dis reporters (I would bring up
lack of photographic skill for that, having been a darkroom tech at a paper
very, very long ago) but the reporter simply is not likely to be out to give
Pagans good P.R. S/he is out to do her/his job which is to sell papers. And
if s/he can find anything freaky it is likely to sell.
The public will form an opinion as well, based not on how you are, but how
you are presented. And, for that matter, the Pagan public will judge you
much harsher than the general reader. It's just that the non-Pagan public
may be inclined towards judging all of us this way and the Pagan public will
just judge you personally, based on how they like to dress.
However, on the other side of it, is it a fair concept that anyone who is
publicly a Pagan has to represent the whole of the Pagan Community? And can
anyone? Is the person in the business suit a truer or better representative
of the Pagan Community than a Deadhead in faded Indian cotton or the freak
in black leather? To a Pagan who wears business suits, yes. To the Deadheads
and the freaks certainly not.
The issue of Fashion Policing those who speak publicly as belong to a certain
group is hardly original to the Pagan Community. For decades now there have
been arguments within the gay/lesbian community(ies), the feminist movement,
among many ethnic groups about whether representing the "Other's" stereotypical
image---even if it is often based on an over-focus on something true ---is
dangerous to the success of the group being taken seriously.
I've been in many women's groups where the issue of shaving legs, dressing
feminine, wearing "appropriate" makeup, and the like have ended up the focus
of discussion. The real issues being involved often get lost. I have again
seen this within the Pagan Community. And this focus becomes very divisive.
And that again is being repeated.
The Ricki Lake Show was a prime example. For those who didn't watch the show
and haven't read the online hubbub about it…the show featured three
teenagers whose parents were frantic because the kids were practicing Witchcraft.
The kids were obviously troubled in many ways ---the two girls were unwed
mothers, the boy's mother was a lunatic, his father a racist (having abandoned
the kids because his daughter was having a bi-racial baby) and his 17 year-old
sister on her second pregnancy (the mother and sister believed that the boy
had caused the first to be miscarried). The kids weren't particularly "freakish"
---the girls wore creative make-up (um, maybe they're teenagers?), one girl
and the boy wore capes (and the girl hinted that it was "requested" --by
the show?), and the other girl did wear black (a pretty basic jersey type
thing). They were focused on spells, although one girl tried the best she
could to describe the religious aspects. All pointed out that they never
did spells to hurt anyone and that they didn't worship Satan ---and after
doing so would be asked why they did these things, would again say they didn't,
then the next audience member would ask again, ad nauseum. All were very
shy-appearing and all the mothers came across to be non-listening control
freaks.
Enter the "real Witches." A Wiccan High Priestess was also on the panel.
She immediately attacked the kids for not being real Wiccans (btw, not all
Pagan Witches are Wiccan and the kids never said they were). She told them
they would get into trouble being untrained and went into a story about a
"ghostbusting" which I'm sure sounded more insane than anything the kids
had said (but perhaps not more than the moms had) to most non-Pagans. She
was dressed "nicely" in a red sweater and slacks…and made it clear that
she thought that she was the only one who had the answers to the "Truth about
Witchcraft" (I'm not saying that was her intent ---just what came across).
Two twenty-something Wiccans, both like the High Priestess seemed to be focused
on the "I've been Wiccan a lot longer than you and you're idiots", attacked
the kids from the audience. All three of the adult Wiccans were focused on
the fact that the kids did spells to prove their powers (none of which worked)
--again, when the kids indicated in response that they figured the spells
wouldn't work, the HPs went ahead and accused them of obviously believing
that it would or they wouldn't do it. None of the Wiccans took into account
that these were teenagers easily bullied by the production staff to do these
things. Or that Lake and the mothers were the ones obsessing on spells…or
any of the obvious factors that the kids were not in control of how they
were presented. However, not minding that these three adult Wiccans, on their
own volition, in their own words, they made Wiccans look like hateful,
intolerant, pompous idiots.
My point in this is to note that what you say should be more important than
how you look. The teens may not have given a great impression of
Witchcraft…but then they were young, shy, and under attack from everyone
except the "resident therapist" (who was the only person on the show who
seemed to have a clue). While the adult Wiccans may have been dressed in
an "anti-stereotypical" way --their representation of themselves as Wiccans
was one of arrogance, hostility, and stupidity (or at least the inability
to listen or see beyond themselves). It didn't matter what they wore, they
made themselves look bad.
What we say can easily be twisted…and there is always a chance of
out-of-context quotes or sound-bites anytime one is in the media. But what
we say is indeed the important issue…and that's where we should be careful
when addressing the media or the public. Going off on spells is a bad idea,
as is bringing up issues like Satanism (why draw attention to it? Denying
it, before someone else brings it up, makes us look like we feel guilty of
it.). Talking in the positive, about things people understand, is what I've
seen bring about a positive view.
We are a religious people, if we get away from the denial about what we're
not -- that is something those who are also religious understand. Some of
us are involved in community service and, while I believe that such service
should be done for the good of those you serve and not for public relations,
a Pagan doing volunteer work might wish to bring that up. You may wish to
mention the most "mundane" of interests that you have…who knows it might
end up never mentioned or the reporter might find the "Pagan next door" angle
something to work with.
And having a clue about one's audience helps. I was interviewed in a Coos
County NH publication several years ago. As it was a very rural farm area,
I had no problem talking about animal sacrifice --about the idea of honoring
the Gods and the spirit of the animal you kill for food and differentiating
it from ritual slaughter used for power. While the people there might not
be as "sophisticated" as those here in the Seacoast, few were very far removed
from having to kill their own food on a regular basis and many hunted and/or
fished. So while it might have seemed a bit odd to them that I did a small
ritual around my fishing, several thought it was cool. I would have likely
gotten flack from people in my town if I had been a vegetarian and promoted
that, but they understood being responsible for your own food. Here (urban
Seacoast NH) I wouldn't be likely to ever bring it up, only to respond if
it were mentioned.
There are definitely those who believe strongly that the speaking and the
image go hand-in-hand. And this is something I've encountered personally
in both directions. Online and from many of my articles (but not all, I'm
sure) people seem to have a certain image of me. They see me as rather
conservative, a bit bookish…very much the adult student. Perhaps a bit
of an aging hippie, turned scholar when they learn of my past activist work
and travels and the lateness of my returning to college. When I took up the
cause of young Goths and Industrial Freaks who were being attacked in AOL
message boards last year, many who knew my other posts were surprised. I
was after all a conservative nerd who probably never got out of the stacks
long enough to meet such people…those who saw my posts in the tattoo
folder probably never got this impression and I'm not sure of the warrior
ones. (This take on my image came from correspondence with several I met
in Celtic and general Pagan boards. 2000 update--- with my pictures on this
website I am sure those who have visited would not be so easily fooled)
On the other hand, those who have seen me before reading my writing and before
I speak seem to gather another immediate opinion. My head is partially shaven,
I have at the moment 5 tattoos and am saving up for more including one I've
wanted on my scalp, I have an eyebrow piercing (two now, same brow), a navel
piercing (which I display for the short time that I can here). My wardrobe
is primarily black, hardly the robes of a "stereotypical Witch" but still
black, and as much leather as I've so far been able to afford (and my hounds
haven't eaten). I've been described by others as a "Punk"… but the term
doesn't fit as such music makes up a small fraction of what I listen to.
I prefer, simply, "freak."
With this look comes the assumption on the parts of many that I'm an idiot,
apparently. I have found this among some non-Pagans, but it seems more common
among Pagans Awhile ago my esteemed editor, Brian Austin, took me to a Pagan
discussion group; afterwards he stated that taking me to such events was
great fun because he liked watching the other participants faces when I start
to speak and all their immediate assumptions melt away. I still speak like
a bookworm.
There are many I've met, and probably some reading this, who feel that I
have no business being publicly Pagan. No business "representing the Community."
But the fact is, I run a public church, I organize (well, I admit that's
probably the wrong word) a monthly gathering, I am indeed a public Pagan.
I don't represent the whole of the Community, I can't. Any more than the
business suit can represent the part of the Community that I can represent.
(and to be truthful…freaks are more likely to be openly Pagan, for if
we can look different then we probably don't have employers or family members
who are going to freak over a little thing like Paganism.)
Last year when I did a panel discussion, the woman who was hosting it seemed
shocked when she saw me. I was a bit surprised as she had known me for years
and should have had a clue as to what I looked like when she invited me.
Mind you the last time she saw me I might have been slightly toned down for
it was at an all day lecture series and some of the leather was in my backpack
as it can be uncomfortable sitting in after awhile. Likewise I might not
have yet been wearing much make-up…for after awhile it gets
smudged…..that all waited for after the lectures when some of us wandered
around the city. Perhaps she just expected me to try to look conservative
for the discussion. However she and the others in the group all dressed in
ways that might be labeled "hippyish" ----which is cool, but not a representation
of me. Personally, I wish my friend who would have shown in a business suit
could have been there too… to show more of a spectrum of what we are.
As for how it went…. I think well, and not one of the folks who attended
seemed remotely intimidated by me afterwards. I spoke a great deal on our
group…not fully formed except for the Tribe. On social values, volunteer
work, and the importance of scholarship. And of faith. While we may have
looked very different, we all shared a great deal in our values…values
we shared with many of the people there to find out about us, or at least
that were understood.
Perhaps of all the ways to meet the public and the media this is the best.
In panels. We are an extremely diverse group…again, probably no more
than any other, but we are small and group together more diversely than most
other religious groups do (remember a lot of those Goth kids you see are
Christians, some even devout, but they seldom hang out with the more conservative
of their peers). It is only in groups of very diverse speakers that we really
can represent the Pagan Community as a whole.
This is, of course, not always possible. And sometimes it's more than a reporter
can handle (in the early '80's a young reporter at the paper I worked for
attempted to do a story on some local Pagans…I introduced her to three
or four of the women I knew, who were not really all that diverse, but were
enough to get her too confused to be able to do the article). So we are left
with the only choice being representing ourselves individually the best we
can and working to the day when enough of us are open about who we are that
the public won't see any one of us as representing all Pagans any more than
we see Jim Bakker as representing all Christians.
This
article is not about The Craft --the movie this title is from. It's
about the image ---and being "the weirdoes." This line works however, because
no matter what else Witches and Pagans had to say about The Movie, almost
every one was concerned with the way the characters looked -- just as they
are about how any other Pagan looks. The movie was only one more catalyst
for folks complaining about freaks in the Pagan Community. It's one more
thing to throw at someone in an argument if they happen to be dressed "Goth."
Because the way Pagans dress seems to be a major preoccupation for other
Pagans.