Mado

- Bowie, 1976

I have noticed that after a major emotional event or some sort of a realization people often tend to isolate themselves as mentally far from others as it can get. They need time to process their feelings and think through it. The ones who seek peace even find rest in their solitude and - not so seldom - get addicted to it.

Can compulsive loneliness be secure?

I assume, the way people look at it depends on individual experience, but how can something so habit-forming, not only get you through though times, but also help you find a stable ground?

From my point of view, someone who actively searches for isolation, isn't just trying to find peace and answers within themselves, but also liberty. When there is no one to see you try or hear you speak, you start relying on just you. But are you really free even with only your own mind around? Who says you can't sabotage your own loneliness? I don't think anyone will ever be able to find an ounce of honest stability and liberty in obsessive hiding.

The western film and cinema has always been male centered industry, with main characters mostly being men, created and directed by one. Even though it has become more inclusive in the past 3 decades, still, there are very few artists who are able to write complex female characters - with flaws, multiple moral sides and dilemmas.

It seems to me that there are hundreds of directors who think that they're capable of this, but they end up putting these women in visually and morally specific aesthetics, which make them very predictable. The archetypes include:

• A smart woman who's either an awkward nerd (Mia Thermopolis from the Princess Diaries) or a cold and calculated workaholic (Miranda Priestly from the Devil Wears Prada)

• A pretty girl who either controls the whole story with her looks or suffers unimaginable horrors and haunts the narrative (Lisbon sisters from Virgin Suicides, Miranda from Picnic at Hanging Rock)

• A tough and resilient women who are exclusively portrayed as cool, confident and rebellious, with no other personality traits, often being sexualized (Charlie's Angels, DC and MCU heroines)

I have observed that in real life most girls do not stick to one surface level appearance that also magically matches their personality, beliefs and story. As a result the viewer doesn't feel seen and, therefore, isn't able to fully relate to these kinds of characters.

When directors write strong storylines for these types of women, they create an illusion of a deep character. I'm convinced that multidimensionalism is the main component of building a persona. Next time you think that the character is well-written ask yourself "is it actually that or does she just have an interesting backstory and plot?" If you can't imagine that character outside of the canonical world, then she most likely doesn't have personality traits and is solely built on stereotypes and aesthetics.

This doesn't happen often to male characters, who are able to make mistakes, explore different visuals and mindsets, because directors put way more effort in writing them, than female protagonists and antagonists. It seems to me that this is exactly why more people, including women, can relate to men in fiction. When there is more diversity, there is more connection.

It doesn't matter if it's 20 people cheering for an underground band in a small town or millions of admirers supporting a global star, fan culture stays as the backbone of the entertainment industry. It has endured countless decades of constant change, both in mainstream media and its opposing sides, but the rivalry between the two hasn't lost its essence.

On the opposing side of the pop culture there are two completely different groups of people who refuse to take it seriously. Alternative subcultures and elders with outdated views on artistic expression. I find that the only similarity between the two is their rejection of pop media. Both groups have different reasons: alt subcultures naturally stay away from it because it's mainstream and old people don't like it because it's new and different.

But I wonder, why shame the ones who actually enjoy it? Out of pretentiousness or just to feel superior?

The one thing about pop culture is that it is widespread, lots of people are invested in and enjoy it. But, just like any other media, it has its main fan base. If we go all the way back to the 60's, we'll see that the biggest band's, the Beatles', stadiums were full of screaming teenage girls. Decades later, in 00's, same situation was present at Britney Spears' concerts and in 2010's one direction fangirls were all over the social media. I think, a good current example of this is Taylor Swift and her fan base, which mostly consists of young women, who are getting called "childish", "boring", and "basic" every time they mention her in public or online spaces.

On that premise, I believe that the problem lies in deep-rooted misogyny. Society has been criticizing teenage girls and young women for having individual taste that happens to match mainstream statistics for decades. Meanwhile, no one is calling boys in active fandoms "tasteless" just because of the masses. This mindset not only degrades, but also robs women of their personality and other interests. A girl can like mainstream, but enjoy your favorite niche bands, too.

It's important to mention that this is not a music-only problem. For instance, (pseudoscience or not) astrology isn't taken as seriously as other spiritual beliefs, herbal medicine is known as "old wives tale", and knitting, sewing embroidery, etc. is still called craft instead of art. All of these practices, mostly done by women, have been subjects of mockery or total underestimation for centuries. This pattern has been woven into history and society actively decides to reinvent it over and over again. It comes back in many shapes and forms, fields and interests.