Stop telling women that they don't need to change to be leaders: Sorry, Globe and Mail, but reinforcing the fairy princess archetype is the Supper of Losers.

Here is a garbage article in the Globe and Mail that is the absolute worst advice anyone can give to ambitious women:

Stop telling women they must change themselves to become leaders

No, fairy princess, get over yourself.

Obviously someone was raised on old patriarchal fairytales and related to the fairy princess rather than the hero.

A fairy princess, or damsel-in-distress is the slot for characters who never grow and change, and hence, always need someone else to rescue them.

The hero, on the other hand, evolves, grows, see his deficiencies, learns the skills needed, makes the attitude adjustment, and changes and transforms himself to victory.

Transmutation is the breakfast of champions.

Staying just the way you are is passive, stagnant, and the Supper of Losers.

Those who don’t change die out. This is basic evolution. Movement is so critical that even physically staying in place causes the body to decay.

Let alone the mind.

To stay in place — physically, emotionally, and mentally — is a freeze response — a sign of both fear and defeat.

Women’s glass ceiling is a two-sided one: yes, men have kept women back, but women have kept themselves back thinking that not to change means decisiveness.

No, it means defeat. It is a form of self-sabotage.

If the lessons and evolution of life has not inspired you to radically change over the years, you are unteachable. Not just in responses, but in personality.

Far from women not changing, they should radically change and frequently.

You should break your routines and habits every so often in order to shake yourself — and your environment — out of slumber.

Because success depends on it.

For example, many people — men and women — stall in their careers and don’t know why.

They have a problem called a panda: there is something real — and defective — in their personality that prevents anymore promotions. They are clinging on to a rote routine or bad habit that keeps them back.

It is not the workplace. It is the person who refuses to look inward, get feedback, and change.

And because women have had less experience in leadership roles, they do not have a wealth of history to draw from.

But men have countless manuals with the common theme of how to adopt and change in order to obtain success.

The power rests within them.

If you are a woman and think you are perfect and have no need to change, motherfucker, you are going to make life a whole lot harder for yourself for no reason at all.

You are not showing strength by staying just the way you are. You are showing a lack of growth potential.

You have to be inconvenienced. You have to have the ability to admit you are wrong and deficient because people are not born equipped to be perfect.

We have an ability to learn, grow, and change.

And it should be something to embrace.

The strong are those who change. Leaders are those who change. They are not intimidated by novelty and learning new ways of being.

Women do need to change. In fact, when they did change, they got a massive improvement in their lots in life. When they sat back meekly, they were their husband’s property who weren’t allowed to vote or have rights.

When they changed first, guess what? So did the laws. Had even more women gotten involved, they would have gotten more rights even sooner.

Had women stayed the same, they still would be their husband’s properties not allowed to be educated or vote or do anything they wanted or needed.

And in order for your actions to change, your thinking needs to change.

And in order for your thinking to change, your attitude has to change.

And in order for your attitude to change, your personality has to change, too.

You turn the leaden shackles in your heart into the golden lasso that helps you climb to the top.

And there is nothing wrong with changing. It is how the brave thrive under any circumstance.

How will you ever reach your potential standing in one place thinking the same thoughts and way?

Deal with it…

Music can impair creativity? You don't say!

I have been saying this for years because as a writer and artist who has taught creative writing and art, I can see how processed rhythms creep into the creative product.

You are becoming confined by someone else’s natural rhythms. You become an emulator and follow another’s grooves.

When I teach both art and writing, I tell people to turn off the music — but go out in the world and listen to natural noises to better reflect mood and cadence.

For example, if you want to reflect a couple having a childish fight, listen to children — not just when they are angry, but when they are silly, inquisitive, scared — and then extrapolate their various states to find common threads. Channel that frequency into your characters and you have something that can connect with an audience.

Listen to leaves rustling. Listen to the waves hit the shore. Listen to someone snoring. Listening to your cat grumbling for more treats. That will set the tone and the mood — not just in writing, but also in art.

When I began to write I Am Jane Doe, my first story was typed on an old electronic typewriting I had to listen to the banging and the rhythm of me working. Once I got the rhythm and the atmosphere I was aiming for, I redid them on my laptop.

I often write outdoors just to listen to the reality around me. My house always has some art process on the go, from a tumbler spinning to hammering — all of those noises are transmuted and then translated into events and characters.

Music is prepackaged and preprocessed noise. It is canned. It can be useful if you want to reflect a canned event, but it will not reach a mass audience — it will be a snapshot in time for a specific group, which may be what you want.

But if you want everyone on the same page, you have to get your noises fresh from scratch.

Science is behind the art, usually. I don’t need a study to know something as an artist with a psych degree, but this makes sense — if you want to get in tune with the frequencies of the world, you have to be open to it…

Matriarchal Storytelling is the reality of sound.

I

adwphu.JPG
Chaser.JPG
twmdw.JPG

II

When I began A Dangerous Woman, I had more than just a vision, but also a plan: to reflect the structure of reality in my stories. Much of my life is in those works, but not always in obvious places: Verity Lake’s area of study was my undergraduate thesis, and her stage “act” in the beginning of the novel Dr. Verity Lake’s Journey of a Thousand Revelations is something that happened to me in real life that served as more than just a personal revelation about the nature of reality, but became the backbone for Matriarchal Storytelling.

When I was fifteen, I had my ears tucked. They stuck out just enough for my mother to make comments for me not to wear a ponytail, and then I took the dramatic route and went for cosmetic surgery. I had to wear a huge bandage on my head for a few weeks, but when they came off, something strange happened.

Sound didn’t sound normal. Voices sounded staccato, broken, bouncing off the walls, tinny, and filled with echoes.

For about a minute.

And then suddenly all these disjointed chords pulled together and it sounded normal again.

This shocked me. I never thought about it before.

What if “normal” sound wasn’t reality? What if that abnormal sound was the reality — and the real thing, and our brains “trick” us into pulling them together?

It stayed with me. My undergraduate thesis was in psychoacoustics, and eventually, Dr. Lake’s signature act to prove that how we perceive reality isn’t the actual reality.

III

After I became a journalist, I realized that revelation extended to my chosen profession. You read a novel and it is smooth, like the sound you perceive, but that smooth flow is something you read in a newspaper article, too.

But that is not unfiltered and raw reality. That is constructed reality.

When I write a news story, for instance, that’s not what I am given.

I have to interview people. I have to corroborate what they say. I have to find evidence, research, context, and a bunch of other things that I have to dig for, such as court transcripts, high school yearbooks, eyewitnesses, memos, transcripts, and social media feeds.

And then after piecing things together, you get that nice, easy, and smooth story.

But if I were to replace the writing with the information I got in order to write it, it wouldn’t be so smooth and obvious. There would tangents and other things mixed in. There would be irrelevant information, and even contradictory information.

When I did Chaser Investigative News over a decade ago, I included the raw information — and told readers what I was doing and going with it.

In other words, I presented the raw reality of the story as I showed the process of harmonizing things.

Like sound. Your brain filters out the extraneous and irrelevant parts and harmonizes it so you don’t get too distracted.

But people take that process for granted, and then become stupid little motherfuckers who think the reality is the smooth, not the fragmented.

And when you do that, you are lying to yourself. Unless you are aware of the harmonization, you get lost because all of your calculations will be off, and you always miss the mark and not solve the problems because you take off the table the one thing that has to be on the table: that there are things that you are overlooking or taking for granted.

You have to account for the differences between reality and the perception of reality.

Before I launched the original Chaser, I wrote an anthology of short stories called Consumer-isms in 12 Easy Steps.

And many of those stories were told in an epistolary style — no narrative, but through voice mails, emails, memos, and raw data where the reader had to piece together the story.

They way I had to do it as a journalist.

IV

That book and my web site would eventually inspire A Dangerous Woman Story Studio where I would have both the smooth perceptions of individual stories, but with the raw reality of having intersecting stories. Supporting characters in one series were main characters in another. Passing references in one novel where the focus on a short story elsewhere.

Just like real life.

It mimicked the reality of sound as well as our perceptions of it.

The chords can be fragmented or sing in harmony, depending on what you listen to and how you pull those chords together.

Magnus Lyme is the root note, while Holly Lake is the melody note, and third character is the third note. It all depends on what you hear, and what notes you happen to catch.

And we see Magnus through different eras of her life that come in waves. These stories do not have to be read in order, and there are advantages to not reading them in any particular order. You are putting together a literary jigsaw puzzle, and the pieces come from all over the place.

It doesn’t matter which piece you pick up first: sooner or later the big picture emerges.

That is the advantage of the Matriarchal: you don’t have to be a slave to linearity or order. Chaos will get you there just the same, with greater advantages that teach you how to break the shackles that serve as blinders by learning to develop other senses.

That is the triumph of the Matriarchal, and that is the reason I write my stories in any order my heart feels a need and want to express…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Thirteen: Journalism was always Patriarchal. Time for the Matriarchal way of opening minds.

Journalism has brainwashed the masses with the silly notion that you can have just one Good Guy, a whole warehouse of Victims, and some nefarious Bad Guys who do not applaud the hero’s every boneheaded idea.

Why the Left are as garbage as the Right is they cannot get their minds around the notion that they are not superior to people who see who they really are and vice versa.

People can be petty little shits who are still holding childhood baggage of sibling rivalry.

As an only child, I am not saddled with those bullshit issues; so I see it very clearly.

I have seen ninety year old still hold grudges against their siblings for no good reason at all, and everything else in their life has to do with the Patriarchal narrative that they are the Hero and their sibling is the Villain, with clueless mom and dad who were the duped Victims.

Their bedtime stories told them so, and then journalism reinforced that notion of Us Versus Them.

No, it is always, always, always, Us Versus Us.

We needed to be told stories that showed us our flaws, too, as well as the positive traits of those we disagree with and even clash. We should negotiate, not dominate as we try to destroy people who think you’re a nerd, which the label alone is Middle Class Kryptonite.

The Patriarchal failed the middle class as it served the interests of the wealthy who use it as a perpetual misdirection to keep the little people little and in perpetual anxiety, fear, anger, hatred, nervousness, and slap fights with strangers on the Internet as if that weren’t a nerdy thing to do.

Twitter is a Troll Scroll for those control freak people with unresolved sibling issues.

When I decided to start A Dangerous Woman Story Studio, I decided that I wasn’t going to play that rigged game, and it dawned on me that we need a better way to tell stories in such a way that people cannot get away with using the Patriarchal as some sort of justification for being petty assholes.

I identified it as Matriarchal, studied its nuances, and even refined it through experimentation, modification, and practice, but I by no means invented it.

Comics books and soap operas do things the Matriarchal way: they focus on more than just One. We have heroes who can be villains or supporting players. It is a revolving door, where we are introduced to new worlds through each door open.

But almost no novels had this kind of epic refinement, except for one.

A Confederacy of Dunces, which, along with The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Color Purple, and Watership Down, are the four novels that never left my heart, soul, or mind.

But ACOD had the biggest impact on me, for numerous reasons.

It was a purely Matriarchal book that had a protagonist who was a jerk, but it was the supporting characters who all had equal time with their own storylines and personal development.

It was written by John Kennedy Toole, who is Person #12 on the List of People Everyone Should Know, and his book is absolute genius and proved that Matriarchal is the stronger storytelling tool.

John_Kennedy_Toole.jpg

Sadly, he could not get this book published, and he became so despondent, that he committed suicide. His mother toiled for years, found a champion who got it published, and then it won a Pulitzer, years after a man who knew he had a first-rate book became broken by repeated rejections.

But I find something very interesting: people who are narrow-minded and memorize scripts absolutely despise this book. They cannot get into it because they lack empathy and do not have a natural feel for making their own judgments on people: they are binary in nature: Us, Them. Good, Bad. Black, White.

Because they were indoctrinated and trained to be that way and cannot grasp the idea that their thinking has been too constricted to the point of being unable to open their hearts and minds to different people and different perspectives.

People with empathy love the book. They can read a story with an asshole protagonist, and still root for him. They can feel sympathy for his limited mother, cheer for both the meek cop and the salty survivor African American as much as they can bond with the ditzy blonde stripper and the over-educated radical New York girlfriend of the main character or the spineless factory owner who is shackled by both nepotism and his obnoxious wife.

They are all flawed. They would have been all villainized in the Patriarchal.

And yet here, they are fleshed out, and even though they come from all walks of life, they are worthy.

They are worthy of being heroes — and they are all heroes in different ways.

There are villains, too, but we can see why they are as they consistently exploit and abuse multiple characters. The supporting characters aren’t there to cheer the hero or wait for him to rescue them. They are all heroes of their own fate.

And the hero is not some gorgeous guy: he is fat, dowdy, judgemental, self-indulgent, manipulative, and a coward.

And yet he is a riveting character and is as colourful as the rest of the characters who stand out, hero or villain alike.

And yet, it took until the early 1980s for the West to be able to even consider a Matriarchal novel.

These are the kinds of stories children need: the ones that do not let them get away with being selfish and self-centred, always framing narrative to manipulate and rig interpretations that they are superior and without flaw.

And journalism should have always done the same thing.

Be a balance, not pick sides. They should have had people understand those they deem outsiders and rivals, and have respect for multiple points of view.

Chaser has the Matriarchal in mind and at heart: it is emotionally literate as it is intellectually literate: it understands the world is a mosaic.

It is not about enabling delusions or sticking to binary scripts.

I have been writing the Matriarchal since 2013 when I began A Dangerous Woman Story Studio, long before Ariana Grande’s song of the same name.

She was never a dangerous woman. She panders as she sings beautifully.

A Dangerous Woman was always about radical centrism: the experimenter’s perspective.

We look at different parts in order to see the whole.

Not decree this broken piece is better than the others…

Matriarchal Storytelling is literary Las Meninas

The best way to describe Matriarchal Storytelling is by visual example. In this case, Diego Velázquez's 1656 painting Las Meninas.

d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net.jpeg

It is a painting that is as enigmatic as it was when it was first revealed. Where is the perspective? What is this painting all about?

It is always looked at through the lens of the Patriarchal that always seeks The One, and hence, seems incomprehensible.

But it is not a Patriarchal painting, making it a rarity. It is a Matriarchal painting.

It is all about the Infinite. There are intersecting stories within a single painting all colliding in a single moment in time. We can look at the whole, or start to look at the sum of its parts. Each part has a different story, but put together, we see how life really works: as a collection of lives coming in at one point in time, but still running parallel, even when running together.

That's the triumph of the Matriarchal, and a very good starting point of understanding it visually is this painting...

Novella: A Murder in the Goddish Realm

This is my first Dangerous Woman novella in well over a year. For those who like the Otherworldly line of supernatural stories -- and for those who like the adventures of Holly and Verity, this is a treat just for you.

A Murder in the Goddish Realm.

You Are But a Grain in the Universe: How Matriarch Storytelling understands the logic of the Infinite.

Bless the heads of those who think their bold Patriarchal decrees mean anything. They are but a grain in the universe, and then spend their lives trying to declare they are Alpha and Omega.

They are all about the Finite and the One, and it is quaint how they try to fool all of the people all of the time by being oh so serious about it.

The fact is that just because the truth has been yet undiscovered and reality unexplored, that does mean that all that is needed to be known is actually known.

Some people are good actors who use cruelty, an authoritative voice, and intimidation and shame to try to shut down discussion...

But that doesn't give them either a final say or the last word in the matter.

We talk about a beginning of time and an end of time -- ignoring all the moments before and after it.

We talk about a start and an end to a space, also ignoring the spaces before and after it.

We are finite grains in an Eternal and Infinite universe.

This scares the Patriarchal right out of its wits because it means power and control does not belong in one person's hands.

And so, the structure to hold everyone back and hope they do not see the Infinite.

But the Matriarchal does more than just see it: it feels, embraces it, loves it, guides it, and is guided by it.

At the core of Matriarchal is the Infinite and the Eternal. We do not have to be privy to all of it, but we can be in for the wild ride as we understand that just because we have not uncover all of the deepest truths of the universe, that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that no one else has stumbled upon them.

But we are game for the challenge as we explore without fear. We learn as we evolve, and the most thrilling part of it all, it is not static and we never need to be bored.

We open our hearts as we feel the grains of the universe become part of our hearts.

It is a very big Infinity to explore, after all.

There are different structures of stories that have yet to be unleashed.

There are new kinds of stories yet to be told, and new ways to tell them.

And even a single grain in the universe can have the honour of finding them just as the other grains can do the same.

It is not some sort of competition where there is only finite time and space to do it...

F.R.E.E.D.: Toward finding the path to a Creative Science

Storytelling and journalism have one deficit in common: they reject the notion of weaving the science when it is about 50% of what was needed.

When I began the concept of Matriarchal Storytelling as a distinct alternative to the Patriarchal, I used a lot of what I did when I was conducting research on journalism by becoming a journalist.

I used a modified form of experimental psychology. I have called it applied psychology, but if we are going to be precise, what I did was, in fact, employing Creative Science; i.e., a form of science that was in tune with the creative arts.

Journalism never did that and it destroyed itself. Storytelling has almost exclusively shut ant structure that is not Patriarchal and we are seeing book publishing languishing as a result.

F.R.E.E.D. and Matriarchal Storytelling both use creative science as the fuel to progress, innovate, and expand its tools and base. We need a special kind of science where the laboratory is not in a sterile Ivory Tower with people in lab coats.

But both take the empirical elements of science to modify them into delving for knowledge to understand the deepest truths of the universe to improve the harshest realities of the world.

Think how many times you made a mistake and hurt someone's feelings or missed out on a wonderful opportunity, and you say to yourself, If I could do it over again, I would have done it differently.

F.R.E.E.D. is the system where you do things differently under specific conditions in order to compare and contrast the outcomes, but also observe different groups of people under the same conditions to see their own outcomes.

F.R.E.E.D. is utopian scholarship: we stop stagnating at What If and begin our journey from What Could Be to What Is.

F.R.E.E.D. is not about believing lies or being satisfied with a status quo rut: it is about improving the world. It is based in practical idealism that trains people to be Altruistic Chroniclers -- but not Martyrs.

If you are out to make things better for everyone, you include yourself in that number. 

And your part of making things better is by liberating truth from the fortress of lies.

You present facts.

Matriarchal Storytelling creates the maps from those facts: this is where we are -- and here are where the next places are for us to reach.

And while we refine the artistic part, we do so by using Creative Science.

We work toward a clearly defined goal, but not by a set script.

F.R.E.E.D. is a superior alternative to journalism: it is built with not just the future in mind and at heart, but it also takes lessons from the past as it finds purpose in the present.

The Matriarchal shows us connections, overlaps, contradictions, parallels, convergences, and divergences.

The two go hand-in-hand to create a weave that is easy to comprehend at first glance, and those weaves become pages that inform us with not just the science -- but the art as well...

Hanging on the coattails of the Patriarchal: Why gender-swapped movies are gimmick, not progress.

Keep your eyes on your own papers, ladies.

I have never been impressed with re-boots, and Hollywood lately, has confused gimmick with social progress. They have dusted off dead franchises made iconic by men, and switched genders!

How originally...offensive!

Ocean's 8 is yet another gendered re-boot of a franchise, no matter what the publicist tells us to think. Gender-swapping implies that women, in fact, have no original ideas and must ride on the coattails of men to succeed.

And worse, the re-boots are not from quirky little movies, but of iconic films, meaning that the ladies need a serious leg-up to stay viable.

Gender is not a mere construct. It is a real thing. Women and men are equal, but they are biologically wired differently. You can reach the same destination two different ways, and there is nothing to say you can't get there one way first before using a different route and lose nothing in the bargain.

But you will favour one mode over another for a reason.

The problem with Ocean's 8 is that it is not original and not originally created with the atom of female sensibilities. It is a simple Patriarchal story. This movie offers nothing that can be construed as original or progressive. An all-female cast of A-list actresses is playing it safe. A racially diverse cast is also nothing new, and there is nothing to applaud here because that's how it should be -- it is akin to applauding a husband for not slapping his wife. You are not progressive when you do that -- you have merely reached the absolute minimum threshold for rudimentary normalcy.

But the re-boot has misogynistic stink all over it: a woman can only succeed if the men paved the path for her. It would be one thing it every once in a while, we have a remake of a film that swaps character types to put forth an old message with modern realities. The original Karate Kid and its remake shared the same soul, but its change in protagonist offered something more to say. It didn't play to be some trendy gimmick.

It was the same thing that annoyed me comic books -- Superman, Supergirl. Batman, Batgirl, and Batwoman. The Adam's Rib hypothesis of a woman's place annoyed me more as time went on.

And for all the talk of progress in that genre, I do not recall a woman-created comic book company with the same awareness, cultural influence, vision, or gravitas.

Which brings us back to Ocean's 8.

The original movie had our anti-hero Oceanman, and here is his sister, Oceangirl. No different than the funny pages of decades ago.

Do not try to spin this as progress for women. You have a Patriarchal story created by men, and now let's squeeze a little more milage by having women in the cast this time.

That we do not have a mainstream bounty of female-created epic stories is the real problem. We do not have Matriarchal stories -- and when we do, they too, are firmly based in Patriarchal franchises that want to expand, with Star Wars and Marvel flicks being on the top of that list.

When I began A Dangerous Woman Story Studio in 2013, I went in with that intent of creating Matriarchal stories that spanned centuries and went all around the world -- and even the afterlife. The flagship character is a woman, and the concepts were not the girl version of a manly concept.

Sure you have The Hughes Boys and their granddaughters The Hughes Girls -- but only if you choose to ignore that their father Hammond Hughes was close to his own brothers -- and were referred to as The Hughes Brothers...and their mother Verity was close to her own baby sister Holly and were referred to as The Lake Sisters...and their own grandmother and her sisters were referred to as The Love Sisters.

Matriarchal stories are generational by nature.

There is no original "male" version of The World's Most Dangerous Woman: Magnus Lyme is a global consultant for the world's most powerful players, but that's just the current era of her life. She also was the hacktivist detective known as Chaser before that, and infiltrated two Illuminati groups in order to write exposés about them all while solving murders as a newspaper journalist. 

Magnus is a truly unique character. She is not an Adam's Rib, but neither are any of the other characters I write -- from advice cartoonist Holly Lake to steamy romance novelist and assassin Bo Hollingberry to amnesiac journalist detective Jane Doe to Dream Detective Lexine Lark and afterlife murder victim activists The Women of Orchid.

That's what Hollywood should have been doing all along: expanding the base to include a variety of stories instead of just spewing out the same re-runs over and over again.

And then, when they veer one grain off, try to pretend this is a big change and revolution. Don't kid yourselves.

Ocean's 8 is about a group of women who steal stuff -- and apparently that includes being in an movie that has been done before.

Pseudo-Matriarchal Storytelling: Big Bang Theory/Young Sheldon.

Since 2013, I have actively worked on Matriarchal Storytelling: a way to get away from the single style of storytelling we have always had, namely, Patriarchal Storytelling.

Norman Lear understood Matriarchal by having strategic spin-offs of his flagship sitcom All in the Family. He knew how to move away from the protagonist and then told stories that had nothing to do with them. The Jeffersons were former neighbour who moved on up. Maude was related to Archie Bunker's wife Edith.

The key feature of Matriarchal is the ability to move away from a flagship character enough to allow supporting characters to shine.

The Big Bang Theory seems to have a big cast, but it is not just a sexist show, but a Patriarchal one.

It may have been the initial idea to have Leonard as the protagonist, but it is Sheldon Cooper who stole the show, and then kept it there. Leonard still Leonard after all these years, but the transformations happened to Sheldon alone. Patriarchal.

Once there were complaints of an all-male cast, the girls were allowed in the clubhouse -- but only as love interests for the guys. They prop up the guys, and far from elevating the show, it reinforced its principle flaw, but did manage to fake an more egalitarian perspective.

It is still patriarchal, and all characters bow to the One. Sheldon Cooper.

Then came the spin-off Young Sheldon -- a show dedicated to explaining away and justifying Sheldon's behaviour.

Normally, this would be something you would see in a Matriarchal structure, but not in this case.

It is still about the One. The characters in the spin-off all prop up the unexpected protagonist.

Far from being a Matriarchal structure, it is a visual annotated notes of the One. Everything revolves around Sheldon. The difference is the show has expanded by thirty minutes, nothing more.

The Big Bang Theory is a prime example of using tricks and techniques to keep a stale storytelling concept seem fresh, the way old fish is slathered in cajun spices to hide the fact it is old fish.

It is an old school show with old school sensibilities. It is an interesting case study of how entrenched the Patriarchal is in Hollywood -- and that they will do everything they can think up to keep outdated story styles in play rather than experiment with different -- and fresher techniques..