Thursday, January 17, 2013

Django Unchained.....Controversy?

    Recently I saw Django Unchained, directed by Quentin Tarantino, one of my favorite directors of all time (Kill Bill, anyone?). When I went to go see this movie, someone commented that they heard the movie was racist. I asked why, assuming the presumed racism was due to the story line - the plot, if you haven't heard, is about a slave seeking revenge on a plantation owner - and, to my surprise, the commentator felt it was racist against black folks. Of course, I became even more intrigued, having to see the film by one of my favorite directors, to uncover the mystery, racist or not?

    Besides the uncomfortable use of the "n" word, I enjoyed every minute of it...all 3 or so hours...and apparently that's not the only undeserved criticism this film is receiving. Spike Lee, for instance, thought the film depicted slavery as something other than a serious matter. Strange, coming from an outspoken black man...
    I felt as I watched the movie, that it was made very tactfully, balancing the humorous aspects and uncomfortable language with historical accuracy. Even when showing Django's wife being whipped, the film was careful not to over-do the abuse, cutting the scene before it became too intense or unnecessary. Not only that, there were many levels of slavery depicted, the "Uncle Tom" character of Samuel Jackson, which was both humorous and sad, women of color being used as sexual objects or maids, workers out on the field, slaves being used for personal amusement (such as fighting and killing), and not to mention the accuracy of the punishments that were chosen (like the hot box).

    I also believe that the language is a necessary component of the film, used to show the degradation through the use of the "n" word and as a commentary of how it is used currently. Due to the time period and the nature of what the film was depicting, it would be inaccurate to not have that word spoken at all, and the use of that word during that time was constant and common. The only inaccuracy of the film is the plot point, so I think it is entitled and justified to use the "n" word, and I speculate Spike Lee is probably being touchy about a white man doing a film of this nature.
    When I saw the movie and it was over, I was relieved to notice I was the only person not of color in the theater and everyone who saw it spoke highly of the film. To sum up this movie, I think it's about time a black-centered movie such as this receives the kind of attention it has (won 2 Golden Globes) and that white directors are starting to see the necessity of depicting people of color in uplifting, empowering roles. Just as my opinion of women in film, just because film-makers are doing historical pieces, doesn't mean we need to keep rehashing the second-class citizenship of women now. So, to show a movie about slavery and to rewrite history.......I say, finally. We don't need to keep depicting the pain of black people, put them in empowering roles. Good! I'm glad Django killed Leonardo DiCaprio... well actually he didn't, but he killed alot of his we just have to work on getting more black actors Golden Globes...

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Why Feminism is Necessary (Part 1 of Many)...

    Inclusiveness has been a big talk among feminists, a notion that is the most relevant of all the aspects of feminism, in practice and in theory. "Feminism" when said, immediately sends chills down the spines of previously thought "open-minded" individuals, but why? I have heard many of my cohorts say when I just mention "women" and not "men" I am being exclusive. Even in the context of my feminist blog. Interestingly, feminism is felt to be too harsh of a word because the male-bodied people, and those who have been brainwashed by the depiction of feminism in popular media, thanks to Gloria Steinem, immediately think you are trying to make the world into a matriarchy.
    This is NOT radical feminism, especially not anarcha-feminism. ( It is also not my fault there are preconceived notions of what/who feminists are, but it is my duty to change them if it is my goal to accomplish feminism's goal: true equality, especially between males and females.
   There are preconceived notions of everything - you don't see vegetarians changing their name/label because everyone thinks if you are called a vegetarian you should only eat plant material and not cheese. Well, too bad ignorant people who think that, that's just the way it is! There are even people who eat fish and call themselves a vegetarian, which technically you would be a pescatarian, but the point is, just because people who are unaware of the true definition of feminism feel like I should say male and female all the time, doesn't mean I should use a different term for feminism. In fact, it's fucked up. After all these years of using that term, then all of a sudden the p.c. police comes and WHAM! feminism has to be "all-inclusive" - guess what? I hate police, especially the p.c. police and feminism is the practice of inclusiveness, because women are NOT included on the whole.

Here is why:

As a woman I am,
1) constantly cat called when I walk outside, making me feel inferior and generally bad, especially about what I wear, even if it's something unrevealing.

2) pressured to beautify myself, like shaving, wearing makeup, wearing pantyhouse - and I do not always have the luxury of defiance. I could loose my job.

3) constantly sexualized, oh, especially when I am in the middle of discussing intellectual ideas

4) ignored when I speak.

5) scared to walk outside alone at night.

6) walking the line of "too sexy" and "too plain"

7) fed images of women since birth that are unrealistic body types, and made to feel less than worthy if I do not try to follow these ideals.

8) told I need "a man to take care of me" by various people including strangers trying to hit on me and my own mother.

   As for other women, around the world, it is obvious there is not equality. Keep in mind, my experiences are those of a young woman in the United States in South Florida, a pretty liberal area. Woman across the globe are frequent victims of rape, the legal systems do not champion them even in the U.S., they are mutilated in some countries, killed at birth in others, and generally kept in fear in all areas, whether because of backwards religious beliefs or backwards political policies. This is called patriarchy. Women are not represented in government around the world, not just here, and therefore are forced to work 40hrs while pregnant and other mind-blowing atrocities that for some reason men think are the same for them......

   That is why it is called feminism and not called equality-ism or something. Say it with pride, you feminists. Don't blush with embarrassment the same way we've been taught when someone cat calls at us and we are wearing a tank-top. Men - it IS NOT EQUAL. Stop whinning about it, and understand you are not all rapists and no one thinks that, but most men are blissfully unaware bystanders. Feminism exists for a reason. Gah.


Saturday, November 3, 2012

Women's Right's At Stake....Still...(oh yeah, miley cyrus fat)


Women's Rights at Stake this Election

     On November 6, 2012 women's rights will be an issue at the voting polls. Amendment 6 proposes public funding to be unavailable for women wanting abortions, unless proven a case of incest, rape or a detriment to the mother's health. 
     Prominent community organizer and feminist activist-writer, Crystal Rose Bix, has organized the rally on November 5, st
ating, "Women will not tolerate Mitt Romney's anti-women agenda. I was born in a generation where I was taught to be just as capable as any man to make decisions for myself. Women's issues have consistently been swept under the rug, and this is a blatant disrespect of equality and the general public's intelligence. We will not see our rights taken away."
     Planned Parenthood first opened in 1916, by Margaret Sanger for similar reasons. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has stated he will retract 'Obamacare', which provides not only contraceptives, but cervical check-ups, mammograms and STI testing for those not insured, promptly upon retaining office and cut public funding for abortions.
     College student Kathryn McAplin explains, "If I didn't have access to contraceptives, which Obama will provide, and I got pregnant by an irresponsible man while this law was in place, I would have to keep the child, leave school, focus on raising a child and apply for welfare. If that's not second class citizenship, I don't know what is." Economic issues, such as cutting benefits for low-income families, including welfare, is also a hot topic this election.
      Women and men will gather November 5, 2012 at 5 p.m., the day before the elections, at the U.S. Federal Courthouse, downtown Fort Lauderdale, to encourage voters to vote no on Amendment 6, in association with community organizer Crystal Rose Bix and prominent feminist group R.Y.P.E.



a funny conversation on this issue - 

Jeff Weinberger Sorry, but this seems more like a not too thinly veiled attempt to paint Obama as the pro-woman candidate to get people to vote for him, rather than a rally for women's rights. But if you look at what Obama has brought to women globally and domestically, he's been a nightmare. Asserting women's rights by supporting mass murderers is not a winning formula for working class women, or people in general.

Crystal Rose Bix I disagree. I didn't personally have access to contraception due to my status as a low income earner, in New Mexico (where i was trying to start a project) I recieved Obamacare which was implimented in few states before the over all start of the program. IF I DO NOT HAVE OBAMA CARE I WOULD NOT GET CONTRACEPTION AND I WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO HAVE ORGANIZED THIS EVENT DUE TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF TAKING CARE OF A CHILD IF I HAPPENED TO GET PREGNANT BY MY BOYFRIEND BECAUSE CONDOMS ARE LESS EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING PREGNANCY. THATS WHY WE NEED TO VOTE FOR OBAMA BECAUSE IN REALITY NO ONE WOULD HAVE GONE OUT TO PROTEST PROP 6.


Crystal Rose Bix me being*

Crystal Rose Bix so, i obviously don't agree. middle class people aren't the only women who need these things

Jeff Weinberger before Obamacare, which does far more for Big Insurance than it does for the health of the working class (consider what Obama is doing to the environment to see how much he really cares about women's health), you could have gone to any Planned Parenthood clinic for basic women's health services...Obamacare didn't initiate those services...I understand it's a complicated issue, Crystal, but as long as we keep voting for the purveyors of burgeoning class domination, mass murder and ecocide - among whom Obama inarguably can be counted as public enemy #1 - because 'my issue is vital,' we're on a losing path in the big picture

Crystal Rose Bix planned parenthood was recently closed down in my neighborhood. breast cancer is one of the number killers of women....

Marc Luzietti abortion isn't contraception. Obamamcare will pay for the pill, but, unlike Romneycare in Massachusetts, won't pay for abortions.

Crystal Rose Bix obamacare provides free contraception which will prevent the people who can't avoid abortions even if its legal to not have even make that decision financially and emotionally
Crystal Rose Bix women don't WANT abortions, if they have an abortion it's out very careful consideration and pressure because they're lives could very well be ruined having a child and that child's life could very well (most likely) be ruined because you most likely need welfare which would be CUT if romney is elected and championed if obama IS elected.

Crystal Rose Bix because you cannot make a man stay in the picture because biologically he does not get pregnant, and anyways men should not even be representing or discussing this issue in opinion at all because it is not their body. i want free contraception, access to abortion no matter what, more access to programs such as welfare because women and minorities are disporportionally effected by poverty, free mammograms, free cervical checks, free STI testing for everyone, doctors to not legally be allowed deny a women access to these things, and not have to prove in the legal system if i was raped or not because even though that law isn't in place, most women are not believed and are scared to be riduculed for coming about being raped anyway. so my friend, i believe your remarks are narrow, close minded, and very androcentric

Crystal Rose Bix the abortion thing is the amendment to not have to prove youwere raped and to not have to be denied access to abortion, just to clarify there's 2 different angles to this

Crystal Rose Bix and besides you're forgetting, i don't like obama, i like obamacare, no matter who is elected and this is fact, war will continue, the united states will continue to kill women children and otherwise, because a single person in office can't stop the system at hand. so...the only thing that would be different with the candidates elected would be whether or not i will have rights. so. there.

Crystal Rose Bix i mean might as well get liberal support while i'm at it, considering most of the population doesn't even care about ending capitalism. and as an anarchist, it's hard not to alienate the general public, look at occupy, it's necessary to come together on common issues that directly effect us, so we can work together on longer term goals. like ending war. which can only be acheived if at least we are looking at eachother as equal allies instead of as second class citizens, don't you think?

Jeff Weinberger Obama is not a champion of welfare, Crystal! Show me your source for that. In fact, it was the Dem Bill Clinton who created the policy, which Obama follows, of 'welfare to work' which denied welfare to tens of thousands who needed it and constituted amajor step toward dismantling the welfare state which any society under capitalism desperately needs as a stopgap to mass destitution.

I'm opposed to Obamacare as it fundamentally is a windfall for Big Insurance. We need single-payer, health care for all, and to take insurance out of the health care picture completely. And, again, Obamacare did nothing progressive re providing women's health services that wasn't already previously available. 

The path you're on is regressive and ultimately bad for women and the rest of us. Fight for the issue outside the electoral circus or you're just endorsing the ongoing undermining of women's rights here and internationally.



Crystal Rose Bix i am fighting outside the system....i'm anarchist...duh...but if women were all of suddent faced with not having the right to vote....don't you think at that point even anarchists and communists should protest that issue? it doesn't mean be completely inactive when your rights are regressing....

Crystal Rose Bix theres no reason any woman shouldn't have access to free mammograms, cervical checks, contraception, or annual check ups when cervical cancer, breast cancer and STIs are easily prevented and kill not just women, but men too. i could have died from all these things and that would be once less anti-capitalist/community activist actually makign a difference. do you know how many people have become anti-capitalist community activist because i have held workshops on radical feminism? ALOT!! i'm only 22...and i can't even go to school let alone afford a child. what if i died in two years or something all because people are sitting on the computer making ignorant comments when tons of people would be supporting KEEPING AND GETTING these important services so we could have a future and a chance at equality? i'm lucky i'm even in the united states and so close to equality. but the reality is women are nOT equaly not socially not legally and poorly represented in politics nationally and internationally. it is people like you who consistently put women's issues as a second priority that will magically be taken care of if there's a revolution. there's been many revolutions my friend, and which country has true equality. none. so really by your passiveness and pessimism and inability to work with the general public on tangible issues that actually can be changed immediately hinders the growth of our society. fuck obama. fuck two party politics. but my issues as a women WILL NOT BE PUT ON A BACK BURNER ANY LONGER. ecoonmically women are treated like shit. this is why. it's because i have the ability to get pregnant, get paid less, the man can leave me if they choose and i have less of a chance to have affordable housing. how can i pay to have an annual check up to find out i have an STI or cancer if people don't want to hire me because i'm a woman? or don't want to pay me as much? or maturnity leave? how can i get a better job when men beeat up women all the time, like my father did to me, to actually make more than min. wadge when the legal system chooses to take sides with men ALL THE TIME. this is why i was in foster care, dropped out of school to run away from foster why i can't get a good job and why i can't afford a child and why i need free contraception so at they fucking least i can prevent bringing a child into this fucked world. i mean come on, why is this difficult to understand?

Crystal Rose Bix just a gentrification reinforces racism and class, taking away my free contraception and right to have an abortion reinforces sexism and economic inequality for women. this is not as much a health issue but an economic issue just so i can keep enough rights to keep my head above water so i can engage in silly arguments and activism and trying to stop corrupt systems....i you think i would even have the luxury of sitting on the computer for a few minutes? thats slavery my friend.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Isn't It Ironic? A New Meme For Feminists

     Thanks Alanis Morissette, "It's a free ride when you've already paid". Well put. I have to say, it figures, because there's some irony brewing in this story -

    I type this as I listen to the song Ironic. Bad joke?

    OK. My blog now has 1,770+ hits thanks to my last blog/rant titled "Do I Look Fat In This?". How is this possible? Is feminism just so relevant that people around the world google radical feminist blogs? I would like to think so, but I doubt that's the truth. This specific blog entry is successful due to three key words: MILEY. CYRUS. FAT. Isn't it ironic? 

    Vain, celebrity-obsessed  people in desperate need of a feminist rant about why I don't always shave my legs, stumbled upon this blog by searching those 3 words of delicious body observation : MILEY CYRUS FAT. Count 'em, 1, 2, 3....hundreds of people typed those words in the google search engine, and was redirected via images and tags, to my lonesome, @ news ridiculed, radical feminist blog. I know this because my blogspot knows what website you came from. Perhaps they even read some of my radical ideas? Maybe they threw out their lipstick and went to work with their real face - GASP! Maybe they thought for a moment, "Hey your right, I'm a woman, but I'm not a sex object, I have a mind too, ya know!!" Then, upon coming to that realization blasted some Bikini Kill in their work office. 

"Revolution Grrrrrl Style Now!!" and the whole office would shake. Just try and fire me. 

    Of course this isn't so, they accidentally wound up in the midst of a cyber hole of feminist opinion, that they probably thought didn't exist. That's awesome. So I propose the most radical action to date: every post from now on will have the tags MILEY CYRUS FAT, as a way to lure the people who need feminism, as opposed to those of you reading this that actually read physical books. You already know how messed up society is and how your boyfriends talks over you, and that you never get the job promotion. Now let's fight back, by typing those three silly word MILEY CYRUS FAT on all radical feminist blogs/things you want out there to mainstream people. Type it and they will come. Ironic? This is the new feminist internet meme.

A Woman's Syndrome: a poem accompanied by my radical watercolors showing

A Woman's Syndrome
A women's syndrome:
nutrient deficient love,
no matter what your portion size
or whose spies lied
between your thighs.
For our own minds aren't minded,
a crime scene polluted by blind men
as we mind them.
Pet them.
Pat them.
Let them give us a pat on the back
for making his favorite dinner
as you feast on the least
thoughtful after-thoughts
the milk drained from our teets...
Due date late, his mistake
your cross to bear.
Eve of fate.
The first birthday cake -
your daughter's prison
in the Gender Lake;
pool of cut of jeans,
pink ribbons
and diet treats.
That's how the war continues.
Walking the shattered streets
with our mother's broken feet.
Broken dreams -
inherited defeat.
Now we should eat
our cake
while the men easy bake
with our leftover bait.
Win this debate
head high, i wait
with my sisters and their mothers.

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Dark Knight: Forecast & Weather Patterns (an @nalysis)

    I know, I know. Bane is Zerzen-esque. This entry is along the same lines as the perspective, except this is a nerd-ed out detailed analysis of the coolest movie I have seen in a theater to date. So give me a chance despite me not having a fancy piece of paper that says I'm allowed to focus my thoughts on such trivial matters. This movie was clearly about Occupy and why it failed. Here it is - The Forecast.

     This movie starts out with the cover up of Harvey Dent. (Bear with me I'm using a plot summary to help speed this up). Harvey Dent is the socially acceptable version of Batman. He thinks he's fighting for justice but while fighting with his last breath, it corrupts him. Then, via Joker, becomes Two-Face (in case you didn't see the film before this one). Why two-faced? On one side he is the hero Harvey Dent, on the other he is the very thing that he hates, corruption and crime. Batman is similar because although he has very clear cut morals, he is still going against the law to do what he feels is right. Essentially Batman is a criminal, which is how the government and majority of Gotham feels; he has alot in common with Harvey. So Harvey Dent's character is paralleled with Batman. (i.e. what is socially acceptable, what is not? what are morals? is the law ethical?) This is why I dissected this movie on anarchist principals - aren't anarchists the ones who essentially fight for justice while simultaneously opposing the law?
    The whole controversy in Gotham is why Commissioner Gordon felt it was necessary to cover up for Harvey when he was a murderer. Why? Because Harvey is the law, the people need to trust in the law or else everything could spiral out of control. (Sort of like what our government tries to do now). If they trust Batman, who was criminalized by the state, people could get funny ideas. Plus, people are morons.
    So, in the meantime, Wayne Enterprises is investing in clean energy. How merit-able Bruce Wayne! Aren't you the hero/billionaire? As you can see, Bruce has a hard time dealing with the fact that the police can't be trusted, the general public is brainwashed, and the fact that he's a billionaire in good with high officials, so he overcompensates by trying to do something good. If you can't change politics from the outside, you should be able to change it from the inside, right? Wrong! This is what the Occupy movement was about, what it failed to recognize, and what the public fails to recognize. It also happens to be the plot device for this epic movie. Let's continue...

    The thing with the sustainable energy project, is it's made with nuclear technology. So, if in the wrong hands, it would be disastrous, when, in fact, it was designed to help people live peacefully. This goes along with the whole dual-identity thing that Harvey and Bruce have going on. Even though something is meant to be for good (or your intentions for instance) it doesn't mean the outcome will be good. This is the grey area of ethics and morality this movie is trying to show and what anarchism is all about. Bane, who wants control of this power, also has good intentions. To have people live peacefully, instead of being moronic sheep. This is the "Zerzen-esque" parallel that Graeber mentioned, because in theory, if green anarchists actually achieved their goal of rewilding, even a city, it would have disastrous outcomes. Like for instance, those who didn't give a rats ass about the environment and loved sipping on lattes and raping women in the first place, so your whole theory that sounded good on paper is actually attacking you now. (Which, although I am a green anarchist, this is theoretical and in accordance to the movie, and what it seems to express). In Bane's attempt to help civilization, that he also hates (there's that duality again), he is actually destroying the city and becoming militant which is the antithesis of what he initially wanted.  Which is also how some green anarchists like to approach helping people (i.e. Green Nazis).

    When Bruce finds out he's bankrupt, thanks to my favorite character of all time, Selina Kyle (aka CatWoman, but she is not referred to that in the film), Bruce suddenly sees things a bit differently. Like how corrupt money is. Not to mention how Selina, seemingly a criminal (after all she is breaking several laws for that necklace), is actually a morally intact person who only steals from those who can afford it. That would be the typical "I only steal from large corporations"-anarchists and Batman would be the one on a morally high horse who never steals because he doesn't think stealing on any level is good; but will still vandalize property. When he meets Selina, he obviously falls for her, because they're both psychopaths who dress up and break the law. All she wants her identity erased so she can live peacefully outside the system upon realizing she can't keep stealing, she needs to lay low. Sound like anyone you know? Conveniently for my analysis, they all wear black. Thank you Christopher Nolan!

    That's about when Joesph Gordon Levitt comes into the picture (seems like he's in a ton of movies these days) and he knows everything. Not only that, he was an orphan just like Bruce and totally idolized him from the time he was a kid and his childish obsession continues into his adulthood, into his profession. That's actually what inspired him to be a cop. A good guy. He wanted to impact people the way Batman had, so he's adopted the same strong ethical code Batman has, and thinks he can help from the inside - like Bruce Wayne. That's a delusion that gets dispelled at the end of the film. His character is a key role because he becomes Robin/Night Wing, so he as well as every single character in this movie, parallels the Dark Knight and his moral evolution. He represents naive youth. He's trying to fill the role Batman had, by helping those that truly need it - eventually stumbling upon the fact those who are there to help (kinda like cops) aren't doing their job, in fact, they don't care. The whole idea of "I can be a good cop" is a farce, and at the end of the movie he throws his badge away to become Night Wing. Following in the shadow of his hero, Batman, throughout the film this question is posed as they mirror each other's steps "Can you work inside the system and still make a difference?" Really, they are just delusional and won't come to terms with reality. The innocent people of Gotham they love so much and are trying to save are actually morally corrupt, just like the law. Most of the time they're too busy trying to save the people from themselves.
    This poses a moral conundrum for all the characters (excluding Selina Kyle, because she is in no way trying to be a vanguard, she's in it for herself, her own gain) now that they are starting to realize how corrupt the system AND the citizens of Gotham are. Why are they trying to save them in the first place? Can justice truly prevail? Are people doomed to make their own mistakes over and over again? How can one be truly happy within all this chaos? Can you be happy living apart from society? Is that feasible?

    Selina Kyle is like the anarchist that is actualized in thought, practice and theory. She has come to terms with society and it's flaws and has decided her coarse of action based on experience of juggling two very different personas - Selina the socialite living within the system/ the cat burglar against the system that is disgusted by Gotham's well-to-do. Now, believe it or not, no one with such moral opposition to the system of 1% versus the 99% can conform their actions to project their radical ideology in their day to day life and peacefully live within that same society. That society doesn't want you, and you don't want it.  So like many anarchists who want to change the system, but cannot, and keep finding blockades in their struggles, eventually giving up because of all the problems from the law, neighbors, your relationships, your child, etc. You have to make a decision. Will you continue on to make a point despite the cost of your happiness/peace, extract yourself from society altogether, or go with the flow so to speak, i.e. give in to capitalism?
    Both Alfred, one of my favorite Batman characters, and Selina, are two sides of the same coin - reason and experience. They both understand the ethical dilemma of Batman (and what he represents) and the need to just live life in peace. Everyone deserves that, you can't save other's from themselves like everyone is trying to do by dressing up in costume. That's why Selina is never addressed as Cat Woman in the movie. She is who she is all the time. No fake identities to save her from from going to jail or to save her reputation to get a decent job. The only difference between the two of them is they represent different options that anarchists eventually face: Alfred = giving in to capitalism and becoming a producing member of society despite being knowledgeable enough to oppose it, and Selina = getting off the grid and living on the outskirts of society and not worrying about other's economic issues she can't fix by robbing the rich.
    This is the green anarchist problem: stay within society to help it become sustainable and equal, or give up on it because it's not going to change (at least not anytime in our future) and just live in a nice hut, grow your own food, etc. During this development, Batman still not knowing what to do upon Bane's rise in power, is making last attempts to justify his Bruce Wayne/ Batman lifestyle that is for the "good of the people", he let's Tate take control of the nuclear energy investment because she seems trustworthy. Plus, if you haven't seen the movie, Bane has control of the energy, he just needs a scientist (like Tate) to activate it and create some sort of death threat so people will be scared enough to do what he wants.

    Bane is the vanguard, UnaBomber person who honestly has a point, but doesn't realize his ways of proving that are psychotic. He gains the city's trust by showing how the police aren't on their side and Harvey Dent was not who he was portrayed as. Commissioner Gordon had a speech all written out that Bane took (score!) and read it out loud to the public. Now, Bane is painted as having a secret motive because they aren't clear as to why he wants everyone scared into REAL freedom. As you watch scenes with Bane, you start to realize he is a pretty nice guy who had some harsh stuff happen to him being raised in a prison and all. But...that is proven to be assumption that is incorrect. HAHA! (more on that later). He wants people to be free, because he honestly feels people are sheep who deserve the right to have a choice. What he doesn't realize, is how naive he is. In fact, like many anarchists (and pro-authoritarians) proclaim in their theories, when the prisoners were released because they are just victims of society and circumstance according to us good-hearted folks, they start killing, raping and creating havoc for those who they felt were responsible for their life decisions. You know, CEOs, politicians and rich old women.

    Cillian Murphy (a great Irish actor who played Scarecrow in the first Batman; another awesome comic book character I wished this movie elaborated on...) happens to be the judge, and if you knew he was Scarecrow in the first film, (you do, cuz I just told you) the craziest of the crazy are now making judgments on the people who were imprisoned by society - giving them the option of death or death by trying to escape. Nice. Bane thinks this hilarious, just like myself, and continues on believing this is what people want, they just don't realize it yet. The truth of the matter is, Bane thinks his motives are pure, but they aren't because he is actually the son of Ra's al Gul (Liam Neeson, another Irish actor, from the first film), so it's tied in with his need to actualize his dad's vision. That's why he imprisons Batman in the prison he grew up in - BUT WAIT! That's not his dad, as revealed in the film, Tate is his daughter...that's who is behind it the whole freakin' time. The reason why no one suspects her and trust so much is because she's a smart woman, in a man's world of business. In fact, Bruce has no clue because he's somewhat of a closet chauvinist. So that's why I appreciate that aspect of the film. The men are so much on their high horses they don't suspect that even for a moment that the pure motherly, smart Miranda Tate is a conniving backstabber, and Selina Kyle who's such an untrustworthy burglar who turns Batman in, is actually sweet as pie. It's all too easy for them to manipulate the situations to their advantage. Good for them!

    All the while Batman is in the Ra' al Gul prison watching the people of Gotham going out of control like some movement just happened (ring a bell?). He does have the option to leave, after all there is a big opening at the top of the prison someone escaped through (only once) and it was a child, whom Batman believes is Bane, because he is still completely ignorant that a woman could be doing this.  He is being kept alive by some monks, because in Bane's words, he has to have hope of escape to truly suffer. So Bruce is just waiting around for something to light up so he can finally make the connections to what Bane was unintentionally alluding to. It has something to do with (a) hope, (b) his unrecognized motives that have to do with Ra' al Gul, (c) escaping, and (d) a mass movement.
    The thing is and what I'm trying to conclude by tying together all these characters and motives and cultural analysis is that Bane, like anarchists in general, has strong ethics that unless forced upon the general public, will only be actualized in small time setting. Why? Because people have their own individual problems and motivations that they fail to recognize that have alot to do with how they are approaching things like activism, personal relationships, political theory, etc. Which makes it impossible for anyone to be on the same page. We are all individuals, and that is what the intention of anarchist principals and practice are supposed to respect at all times. But when you start to interact with society, with all the different types of people with different views, desires, and aspirations, we ultimately dismiss the possibility that we were wrong to think we have the best morals that make the most sense. We are only in control of our own lives, not everyone else's and we need to make decisions based on that. Like Alfred and Selina.
    Bruce eventually comes to this conclusion by putting things back to the way it was, just as messed up as before, becoming the martyr of the movement by faking his suicide, because he just loves society so much. When in fact, he realizes he can't be a billionaire who cares about orphans and pretend he's doing so much to help the world, when in fact, like the nuclear sustainable energy, that started with good intentions, his fascade developed into something reckless based on personal motivations and ego. People need hope not to suffer, but to balance the duality of their lives without being hypocrites.  
    That's why Bruce and Selina in the end run off to Italy with Alfred's recommendation, off the grid, and start living a happy life. He now sees he was pretentiously making himself the hero for a lost cause at the expense of his happiness. It's like Occupy movement because the intentions weren't clear, it was angry and all over the place. Occupy eventually fizzled out because people lost hope. The point of the film, as symbolized by Robin/Night Wing is you need to continue hoping, and trying as much as you can. People need to feel a revolution could happen if they wanted it. Which it could. The truth is though, we don't know what's good for everyone else.