People have been stealing Spencer Ackerman’s report: that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has added fans of Insane Clown Posse to their gang watch list left right and center. But it seems to me they’re missing a crucial detail given that the Juggalos have a massive and massively-publicized gathering every year, isn’t this the world’s most easily-resolved gang sting?

I really shouldn’t be flip about this. There’s no question that bad things have happened at the Gathering of the Juggalos — you may not like Tila Tequila, and you may think she’s a phony invading your safe space, but you don’t get to assault her on stage. And it seems like a pretty sexist culture. But none of that makes ICP fans on the same spectrum as Mexican drug cartels. The group is, after all, theoretically supposed to be a stealth evangelical Christian outreach project, though I’d be curious about Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope’s conversion rates. And nothing suggests to me that there needs to be a systemic investigation and response to the existence of the Juggalos, whose crimes seem minor enough to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Culture doesn’t make people commit crimes. I have no idea why we can’t absorb that fact, but apparently, it’s a challenging concept for law and order and family values worriers. It’s easy to displace responsibility onto video games, onto 2 Live Crew, onto rock and roll. It’s much harder to face up to changing norms, poverty, and social alienation.

Richard Florida has been getting a lot of attention for a breakdown that illustrates how big the gender pay gap is for workers across all sectors of the creative class: in all of those professions, men make $82,009 on average compared to the $48,077 women pull in. And the situation’s not much better in the arts. In the arts, design, media, entertainment, and sports, 47.5 percent are workers and 52.6 percent are men. And women in those fields make an average of $35,141 each year, compared to men who make an average of $50,382 — women earn 69 percent of what their male counterparts make. It’s true that some of this could be explained by a difference in the amount of work they’re putting in: women in arts, design, media, entertainment, and sports work an average of 34.4 hours per week, while men work an average of 39 hours per week. But women in the field also have slightly more education than their male counterparts, an average of 14.7 years to men’s 14.5. The rest of that adjusted-for-working-hours $9,400 disparity is coming from some place other than working mothers. And it’s a pretty sad distinction that it’s the second-smallest adjusted pay gap in all the fields Florida and his collaborators surveyed.

I’ve been particularly struck in the past couple of days by two great pieces, one by S.E. Smith on Tiger Beatdown and one by Courtney Martin in the Nation, about the challenges of doing work in the feminist blogosphere. It’s not so much the testaments to the truly evil things people write to and about women on the Internet, though I agree with S.E. that it cannot be reaffirmed enough: if you’re not the person who is being threatened, the extent of the awfulness can take time to sink in. But both pieces brought up different aspects of a similar problem: how costly infrastructure is, and how difficult it can be to maintain.

S.E. writes:

This is something else people don’t talk about, very often; the fact of the matter is that if you run a feminist or social justice site, you will be hacked. Probably on multiple occasions, especially if you start to grow a large audience. Some of these hackings are just your usual cases of vandalism, people testing servers to see if they can do it, not with any specific malice directed at you. Others are more deliberate, more calculated, and they come with taunting and abuse.

Many feminist sites stay on services like Blogspot because of the higher security they may offer; people who host their own sites do so in awareness that if they aren’t very knowledgeable about technology, they need someone who is for when they get hacked, and it’s not if, but when. Readers often don’t notice because it flashes by, or it causes problems with the backend, the site management, not the front end. Sometimes they do, when hackers inject malicious code that changes the appearance of the front page, or attempts to load malware on the computers of visitors, or just takes the site down altogether, sometimes with a message making it clear that it’s personal.

And Courtney explains the cost, and what it means for expansion:

Like Feministing, Racialicious, a destination for online readers interested in racial justice, spends its revenue—which comes from intermittent fundraising drives and limited ads—on tech and hosting fees and other basic maintenance. “Strains have been starting to show and most of them are financial in nature,” explains editor Latoya Peterson. “Simply put, a good blog takes a lot of time. It’s really easy to spend so much time on Racialicious and then realize you haven’t pulled in any paid work for that week, so rent is going to be rough next month. A lot of people get so burned out in the process of producing, creating and engaging, that the emotional tolls are super high.” Despite running a popular and well-respected site that draws about a quarter of a million readers per month, Peterson loses money every year as she doesn’t get paid and is, in her words, “on the hook” for the expenses…

Currently, most online feminist organizations are structured as nonprofits—obliging them to fundraise from private donors and foundations that still generally don’t understand the ways in which the internet are being used to make social change. Emily May, founder and director of Hollaback, which is building an international movement against street harassment using mobile technology, online advocacy and on-the-ground organizing, says, “We’ve had to hustle really hard for every dollar, in part because most foundations just don’t have a portfolio that we can fit into.” Their budget last year was $81,256 cash and $114,113 in in-kind services, according to May, and most of it came from unusual sources, like the Instructional Telecommunications Foundation and an older male donor who admitted to “hating the internet,” but loved the idea of women in solidarity, fighting back against violence in public spaces….

Tiger Beatdown’s Sady Doyle solicited donations from readers when she was in danger of losing her apartment. As Doyle has made a name for herself with smart, outspoken feminist analysis, the “real pay,” as she puts it, has come from freelance writing and speaking opportunities. Today, she pays contributors to Tiger Beatdown a modest stipend out of her own pocket, but recognizes the need for more systemic support: “If specifically feminist media is going to be marginalized by media as a whole (and it really has been), we have an obligation as a community to do what we can to ensure that there are spaces where it is provided, and that the role of the public intellectual is financially supported outside of the academy.”

I have to admit, I’m thankful every day that I work at an institution that’s big enough to hire a ninja-like webtech team that makes sure we’re up and running smoothly (almost) every day, though of course code pushes do wonky things occasionally. But not every blog is going to want to become part of a larger institutional structure, and not every blog can. And not every blog and not every blogger can wait for foundations to make cultural changes and recognize the importance of Internet publishing. I wonder if it might make sense to try to jump-start an independent fund specifically to provide infrastructure support to the progressive, and specifically feminist blogosphere to handle some server costs and to provide free or low-cost hacking response and tech support (and open-source resources for beginners on both topics), and freeing up folks to raise money they can spend paying contributors and expanding the range of their content. I’d kick in a recurring contribution for something like that. And given the success of something like Womanthology’s fundraising campaign, I think and hope others would, too.

I’m feeling sort of meh about the next Bond movie. After Casino Royale gave us a plot with actual relevance, as much drama when Bond wasn’t committing acts of violence as when he was, and a Bond Woman in Eva Green as opposed to a Bond Girl, Quantum of Solace regressed to loud nonsense and eye candy. But one thing in the description of Skyfall did catch my eye: “Bond’s loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her.”

I thought that one of the things Casino Royale did best was to reboot the relationship between Bond and M as a somewhat maternal one, albeit one that’s riddled with prickles. That initial scene where he breaks into her apartment to rifle through databases that are closed to them has the air of a mother exasperated with an inconveniently precocious child. When she scolds him after his tropical misadventure, he’s a teenager she needs to give a leash to, but she’s keeping an eye on him. And after Vesper’s death, when Bond tells her curtly that “The job’s done, the bitch is dead,” it’s understood between them how badly he is wounded. Part of the fun with Bond, of course, is his appeal to women, but it was a relief to see a sustained relationship in there, and one that’s based on intellect, wit, and the work.

I also just think that Judi Dench’s work as M has been superb. I will admit that I appreciate it when someone as accomplished and talented as she is shows some affection for tacky action movies like the Bond Franchise and the Riddick movies. Rewarding her for transforming a kind of thankless role by giving her a substantive backstory should be fun for her — and for us.

The public policy conversation about headscarf bans is so loud that it obscures the fact that Muslim women who want to be stylish and religiously observant face a lot of other challenges, ranging from the predominance of sleeveless tops and dresses to a tendency by designers to make compliant garments in drab colors. So it was cool to read this NPR profile of designer Nailah Lymus:

They are full of color: blues, purples, prints and tapestry woven pieces. Lymus is determined to break down many of the stereotypes about Muslim women — like the assumption that all Muslim women are docile and wear black.

“I like colors and I like flowers, and I like head pieces with feathers coming off of them, and all I do is just put it on top of my hijab instead of putting it on my hair,” Lymus says. “I am a woman — I am attracted to those things, so I really want to break down that stereotype.”

Amirah Creations takes its inspiration from the 1920s-1950s. The dresses have a lot of flow, “a lot of pouf,” and there are “a lot of very playful kind of pieces.”

“I’m inspired by that era,” she says, “but also, Islamically, it is pretty modest.”

The 1950s, Lymus says, was a period where you could be feminine, but you also could be covered. As an African-American designer who lives in Brooklyn and grew up Muslim, Lymus herself wears bright prints and colors, but her head and arms are always covered.

I really love her metallic color palate in her most recent show, and the ’50s silhouettes on her day dresses, the space age Betty Draper-ness of it all. The clothes are a reminder that, just like in movie or television storytelling, constraint can be a useful spur to creativity in fashion. Goodness knows that having absolutely no limitations whatsoever on what you can afford to do or on your sense of what’s too sexy doesn’t mean you’ll produce a collection with interesting ideas or that actual women could, or would, wear.

The bridge is yours.

-Occupying Sunnydale would probably be pretty challenging, particularly in terms of getting folks through the night.

-Someone just give Spencer Ackerman a side hustle writing for X-Men already.

-Have Axe’s advertising campaigns worked too well?

-If you don’t want to read long fantasy books in long series, you probably shouldn’t read long fantasy books in long fantasy series.

-Seriously. Not good:

Via The Mary Sue comes the news that Steve Kloves, the writer behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, initially planned to replace the duel between Minerva McGonagall and Severus Snape with a duel between Harry and his long-time professorial nemesis — but that J.K. Rowling fought to keep the scene in and eventually won the day.

I’ve always loved the way Deathly Hallows opens up McGonagall to us in a pair of scenes — it’s some of Rowling’s leanest, tightest writing. We’ve known for years that she has been Dumbledore’s ally, affectionate towards the Potters before their deaths, a tough, fair teacher even given her Gryffindor partisanship. But it’s in those two scenes that we get to see her be a Gryffindor — and a real person. First, there’s the duel, the moment when she gets to stop being patient and gets to stand up in defense of her values. We get to see her be a superior witch in a non-academic setting. And after she wins, there’s that terrific line when she explains what’s happened to the school: “He has, to use the common phrase, done a bunk.” That line alone is just perfect, her shaking off her formality and declaring her allegiance. And it’s glorious.

Then, there’s the scene when Voldemort and his cronies return what they believe to be Harry’s body to Hogwarts (which I think may have been the most botched thing in the whole second movie), and McGonagall almost breaks down. One of the things that’s interesting about Rowling’s depiction of Hogwarts, and which made her revelation that Dumbledore was intended to be gay simultaneously gratifying and a little disappointing, is that none of them have personal lives that we know of. They socialize with each other in the Three Broomsticks. Professor Trelawney may have a bit of a drinking problem. They’re affectionate toward certain students, but always in a teacherly capacity. But we don’t really see them outside of their official capacities — the revelation in Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore was someone before he was Hogwarts headmaster is surprising not just because of the contours of his biography but because it’s hard to think of him as a person at all. So when McGonagall cries out for Harry’s death, we’re seeing a veil fall away: she loves him, as a student, as a symbol, as a person. She gets to be more than a strict spinster, more than a sexless female member of a conspiracy. She gets to be a woman, even if it’s just for a moment, and she gets to be a warrior. I’ve joked that if there were Pottermore spinoffs, the one I’d most like to see is a Young Minerva McGonagall story. Because the woman is amazing. And I’m so glad that Rowling fought for her right to fight for Harry, and for Hogwarts.

I have a soft spot in my heart for Lord of War, one of those movies I think people always assume Nic Cage took for the paycheck, but where I think he’s actually quite good playing an arms dealer based on the life of Viktor Bout. At the movie’s end, sold out by his family and in the custody of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Cage’s character tells Ethan Hawke’s federal agent that there’s no way he’s going to jail:

Let me tell you what’s going to happen. This way, you can prepare yourself. Soon there’s going to be a knock at that door and you will be called outside. In the hall there will be a man who outranks you. First, he’ll compliment you on the fine job you’ve done, making the world safer place, that you’re to receive a commendation and promotion. And then he’s going to tell you that I am to be released. You’re going to protest. You’ll probably threaten to resign. But in the end, I will be released. The reason I’ll be released is the same reason you think I’ll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men are the enemies are your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer int he world is your boss, the president of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year, sometimes it’s embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns…Unfortunately for you, I’m a necessary evil.

So it’s nice to see that cynical worldview hasn’t prevailed and Bout’s been convicted and may be spending the rest of his life in prison. The movie’s worth a look, though, both for its dark humor and a couple of deeply weird, beautifully shot sequences. Although I always feel sort of mixed by the tendency to shoot scenes set in Africa in super-saturated color. I can never tell if I feel like it’s a way to exoticize the continent and make it seem overwhelming rather than familiar.

The Hollywood Reporter released its list of 35 rising stars in Hollywood’s next generation last night, and it turns out that the new Hollywood doesn’t look hugely better than the old Hollywood. Just five of the agents, actors, writers, and other Hollywood figures on the list are people of color. Sixteen of the 35 are women, a number that’s skewed slightly higher because THR named more actresses to the list than actors, so the underrepresentation in other categories is correspondingly stark. These numbers aren’t impossibly off the actual population marks, but they are still low. And if the goal here is to produce a vision of Hollywood’s future, they’re sort of depressing. We’re going to be a majority-minority country in 2050. Making an effort to be appropriately representative based not on current industry employment levels, but on what the country actually looks like and will look like could be helpful, both in terms of setting some standards for Hollywood to meet as opposed to collapsing in despair, and in giving some folks who might be overlooked because they’re not white and male a moment in the spotlight and a credential they can present later.