Article: 11051 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Rodion Raskolonikov Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 22 Sep 1994 16:15:36 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 73 Message-ID: <35s3i8$79s@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 22:08:19 -0700 Comments: To: FutureCulture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..721:22.08.94.14.15.14"@uib.no> God, I am REALLY behind in reading my messages (about 200 messages behind), so, once again, I hope that this response isn't hopelessly out-dated. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In one of Alan's posts he comments on how he percieves P.J. Harvey, Tori Amos, and (to a lesser extent) bands like Hole and Bikini Kill connoting a 'new wave' of women's music -- a music which deals with the body and engendering. I agree. Powerful women have played a too small role in rock on roll music history (and an even smaller role in other music history -- yes, I would argue, even in jazz...). Yet this new wave of women's music seems to be new and different and most importantly powerful in the realm of rock music. Witness the new role of women in top 40 music, and in 'fringe' music. Have you guys noticed P.J. Harvey's love for having her songs go from quite to loud about mid-way through? After they hit the loud section they kind of teeter into the abyss of self-destruction -- that is, a wall of noise. It seems to be a way of hinging on the brink of non-idenity and just barely pulling out with the song intact *only* becuase the song ends. Is this a way for her to assert her self-idenity amongst the typical preconcieved roles of femininity? I think so. She seems to refer to this in her lyrics. One of the pictures on the inner sleave of her first album shows a close up of red lipstick -- red lipstick associated with the 'feminine' persona of the whore. Yet P.J. Harvey (and Liz Phair and Salt and Pepa and the Riot Grrls and on and on) take the role of the whore and re-work it, re-invent it, make it their own badge of idenity. I really enjoyed her _4 Track Demos_. They had a certain immediacy and primacy... I also think that her sexual fascination is great. It casts her in the role of a sexual persona whose sexual drive is different from the males', but is in NO way subservant or substandard to the males'. This whole "I want you, but I sure as hell don't *need* you" attitude in the afforemented women is intresting. When Liz Phair sings "I want to fuck you like a dog," it sounds like she is in control... she may want a boyfriend in the next song, but in this particular song (and in general) she is stressing her sexual indepedence. The riot grrl movement is incredible, IMO. Sure, they are reinventing lo-fi punk, but they're doing it... :) The more intresting riot grrls are in my opinion on the fringes of the lo-fi movement (and by fringes I don't mean the as-yet-unpopular L7 or Babes in Toyland rip-offs). For example, Bratmobile is doing really great amalgamas of various other song styles (a lot like Ween) in an incredibly 'bratty' style. What they're doing is fairly unique. (Although, they are kissing cousins to their riot grrl contemporaries and to Ween and Pavement.) Cub is another intresting lo fi grrl group -- they are incredibly insipid and intense and exciting -- all at the same time. What is intresting, IMO, about the riot grrls is their D.I.Y. (do it yourself) attitude to feminism. They are about self-created empowerment that is not attached to a particular dogma. I *don't* like P.J. Harvey stridently claiming that she is NOT a feminist. I do understand her reluctance to being labeled, but I'm not really sure what I feel about her seeming dislike for the *label* itself. One of things that's intresting about this new movement is that all of the women are creating roles -- not searching for the 'essence' of femininity that early women attempted to do. They are being active -- creating a new style that is a force to be recogned with... * * * * Simulacrum, simulacrum, rah, rah, RAH! |o/ \o/ X X dionysis@nevada.edu |\ / \ (aka Troy Swain) Article: 11129 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 26 Sep 1994 20:17:09 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 83 Message-ID: <3676nl$eu@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 11:33:43 +0500 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..131:26.08.94.19.16.34"@uib.no> dionysis@nevada.edu (aka Troy Swain) wrote: >In one of Alan's posts he comments on how he percieves P.J. Harvey, Tori >Amos, and (to a lesser extent) bands like Hole and Bikini Kill connoting >a 'new wave' of women's music -- a music which deals with the body and >engendering. > >I agree. >One of the pictures on the inner sleave of her first album shows a close >up of red lipstick -- red lipstick associated with the 'feminine' persona of >the whore. Yet P.J. Harvey (and Liz Phair and Salt and Pepa and the Riot >Grrls and on and on) take the role of the whore and re-work it, re-invent >it, make it their own badge of idenity. the first thing thst springs to mind here is: what's so new about re-inventing the role of the whore? The other is: is it necessary to re-invent this image for a badge of identity and is this, then, a significant feature or not of the creation of identity in music? If so, how? How is this *not* a search on their part of the essense of femininity? I would argue that the great red lips on the sleeve, and Phair's, err, ready mouth on her album cover are not meant as a statement to women, but as a statement to men. It says "Look: we profess to have a power over you, and this is our statement. And, we can still be attractive and be powerful". This _could_ be a statement to women in the sense of saying that it's ok to be attractive and powerful, but I don't buy how _they_ say it, as it's done with great big red vulval lips, and a mouth open and ready in a familiar pose; these images don't call me. I like _one_ song on Phair's first disk only, and only 'cos of the drums. I _hate_ the cover and got rid of the disk because I couldn't stand looking at it. There aren't many bands that manage to repel me in such superficial ways. But, wait, I have a second example: the _name_ of the band "Hole". I'd kind of like to go hear this band, but I'm so so SO turned off by a band composed of women that calls themselves "hole" that I just can't do it! (Not to mention the name Courtney Love... the images of the two together are just too much, too blatant, too gross and speak of a re-imaging that is unnecessarily sexual). Power isn't so much sexual as it is the finding of a voice. aka Troy Swain's repeated mentions focuse most often on Harvey's and Phair's primacy, sexual fascination, the role of the sexual persona whose sexual drive is different, the "I want you, but I sure as hell don't *need* you" attitude, sexual control, Phair's "I want to fuck you like a dog", sexual independence... all statements of sexuality, hence femininity. I do wonder, since it has been men who have commented on the strength and power of these musicians, if the women on this list feel the same strength and power behind this music, or is this music more appealing to men? I don't see the draw or hear anything that calls to me in particular. I can certainly live without the re-imaging of the whore as some kind of messianic role for femininity/ism. Neither femininity nor femininism are for sale, for either sex, in the attainment of power, to my mind. The idea that it may be for sale in order to empower or engender a new feminism is totally repugnant. >One of things that's intresting about this new movement is that all of >the women are creating roles -- not searching for the 'essence' of >femininity that early women attempted to do. They are being active -- >creating a new style that is a force to be recogned with... How is that creation of a new style NOT a search for "the essence of femininity"? That's exactly what they're doing with this heavy load of sexuality: looking for a new attractiveness in an old way. I would think that Edith Piaf and Ella Fitzgerald, but two good examples, created styles that were and will be much more long lasting and memorable; styles that continue to be powerful, styles that were not so much a search for some essence of femininity but for a _voice_. Voices that continue to echo, as certainly as Phair's won't. Wouldn't you agree that finding a voice is much more important than finding out where your hole is? Fran ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: * Fran Sendbuehler * Das Schicksal und Gemut Namen eines sendbuef@ere.umontreal.ca * Begriffes sind. talk:sendbuef@tornade.ere.umontreal.ca* * -- Novalis :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : Article: 11135 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Evan Kirchhoff Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 27 Sep 1994 03:22:46 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 44 Message-ID: <367vlm$cfr@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 16:03:21 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.uark.edu To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9409240933.AA02864@canopus.CC.UManitoba.CA> from "Rodion Raskolonikov" at Sep 21, 94 10:08:19 pm Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..080:27.08.94.02.22.23"@uib.no> So far behind, don't care, don't care... Rodion Raskolonikov says: > Have you guys noticed P.J. Harvey's love for having her songs go from > quite to loud about mid-way through? Yeah, except that I forgot about it when I first bought "Rid of Me" and put it on. "Boy, this is a quiet album," I thought, "what was that stupid Steve Albini thinking, anyway, making such a quiet album?" So I turned it up nice 'n loud, and went into another room to work on the computer. Two minutes in, the volume doubled, the speakers started to make hideous farting noises, and I fell all over myself scrambling back into the living room to kill the volume. OK, fine. Went to school (leaving everything but the CD player turned on, as always). Got home and wondered what the strange BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ noise was...PJ Harvey killed my preamp! :) (So now I've got to run the CD player directly into the poweramp, and I can't play anything lower than "medium loud" -- thank goodness I live in this building). > Cub is another intresting lo fi grrl group -- they are incredibly insipid > and intense and exciting -- all at the same time. Wow! Cub has actually trickled all the way down to nevada.edu? I've seen them live on their last 2 trips through town (the last one was about 2 weeks ago), and their live sound is getting more overtly "punk" -- ie. they're cranking up the guitars over the vocals, in contrast to their traditional "cuddle-core" sound. > One of things that's intresting about this new movement is that all of > the women are creating roles -- not searching for the 'essence' of > femininity that early women attempted to do. They are being active -- > creating a new style that is a force to be recogned with... Yeah, I've recently started buying up most of the stuff you mentioned as fast as I can -- it's finally got me believing in rock and roll again (as opposed to escaping into the nether regions of folk, pop, and over-the-top industrial). I only wish some of these people would actually tour here, but no, we just keep getting Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, etc. etc., vacuuming up all the money... -- Evan Kirchhoff, kirchh@cc.umanitoba.ca Article: 11141 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Alan Sondheim Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 27 Sep 1994 09:44:25 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 19 Message-ID: <368m19$lfe@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:35:06 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409270001.AA14229@panix.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..111:27.08.94.08.44.13"@uib.no> I haven't gotten all the posts about this, for some reason (cranky server), but my feelings were motivated primarily by PJ Harvey who I hardly think of as embodying or em-minding whore referencing; what comes through is a kind of upper-chest (physiologically) body-strength in the intensity of the vocals, repetitions, insistence. Bjork is an older "model" or analog, for me, on the lines of songstress. By the way, I know a lot of women who like P.J.Harvey, including my daugher (17) and numbers of her friends, some of whom have refused to listen to music by male bands. Alan As a matter of fact, I don't think of the whore-image as playing much of a role; as far as Hole goes, I don't think this is playing into male fantasy so much as detouring it. The word is used in an inverted sense; if there were (probably is) a group called Cock, it would have all the usual macho-male-strut _out there_. Hole isn't _a hole_ possibly (I can't speak for them or anyone), so much as a recuperation of the female body by the female body, men get out of here. Alan Article: 11143 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Edward Hewitt Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 27 Sep 1994 10:49:52 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 17 Message-ID: <368ps0$oo7@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 23:17:44 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409270001.UAA07561@netaxs.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..656:27.08.94.09.49.38"@uib.no> Don't have time to comment on all of this right now, as I just returned from seeing Hole and Madder Rose in concert minutes ago. But I will offer this sentence from the LizPhair press release I just received from Matador two days ago: (from paragraph #5) Perhaps because Phair is now the unwitting close personal friend of tens of thousands of listeners (with equal attention in the form of indie-rocker crushes and sexual/political semiology waving), WHIP-SMART's songs are of a more whimsical storytelling bent. Again, no judgement here, just the view from the inside of the starmaker machine.... Ed Hewitt the REAL ehewitt Article: 11152 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Philippa E Holloway Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 27 Sep 1994 23:16:04 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 31 Message-ID: <36a5j4$31q@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 11:10:43 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC%UAFSYSB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409261733.NAA11499@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> from "Frances Sendbuehler" at Sep 27, 94 11:33:43 am Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..766:27.08.94.22.15.29"@uib.no> Im somewhat embarassed to admit that Im almost totally unfamiliar with these musicians, except S&P. So, I cant comment on this thread exactly, but these words kinda grabbed me: dionysis@nevada.edu (aka Troy Swain) wrote: >the whore. Yet P.J. Harvey (and Liz Phair and Salt and Pepa and the Riot >Grrls and on and on) take the role of the whore and re-work it, re-invent >it, make it their own badge of idenity. Maybe one of y'all can help me figure out why this "take it and make it their own" stuff is rubbing me the wrong way. NOT, that it has anything to do with Troy -- I've been hearing this line since I took my first women's studies class 8 years ago. Its starting to sound cliche, perhaps. Like it's sort of this weapon one can weild against any enemy. I dont play MUDS, but it sounds like you could kill dragons that way or something. Just type in "take and make own" and the dragon goes away. Ah, Im making less and less sense here. But how exactly do you takeITandmakeITyourown? I get the concept, but do you really own IT? And what is IT anyway? IT's oppressive language or symbols right? Well can you really disarm IT just by saying IT's mine now? Is it possible to try and takeITandmakeITyourown and fail? Can anyone understand this better than me and explain me to myself? Groping blindly, Pip holloway.28@osu.edu Article: 11153 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Rodion Raskolonikov Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 28 Sep 1994 02:00:53 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 122 Message-ID: <36af85$6lo@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:31:35 -0700 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409270001.RAA02617@post-office.nevada.edu> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..400:28.08.94.01.00.46"@uib.no> Hmm... I was completely unclear... I don't think that *any* of the women mentioned are *identifiying* with the role of the whore, but are re-creating their own roles, identities, and voices that includes sexuality which has almost always been associated with the male version of the whore. I don't percieve it as a search for essence in any of the groups I mentioned. I percieve most of them as claiming "this is who we are, deal with it," and as being competely unconcerned with male notions of feminitity. Also, although I'm not an expert or a woman, I do help my friends at a little used record store which deals almost exclusively with "alternative" or "independent" music. Most of the young women who come into the store indentify theirselves with the "punk" or "skater" or "hip hop" labels. A LOT of them _only_ buy "grrl" bands, and P.J.Harvey, Cub, Bikini Kill, and several others are some of the most popular. (Hole has been out of favor for awhile mainly because of Courtney Love's media moguling.) Yet the aforemented groups' albums are bought by more women then men (in this store at least). I didn't use the term 'voice' because (with few exceptions) I don't think that any of the artists have trully found a *unique* voice. They are all unique, but not unique enough to be uncatagorizable (with the slightly possible exception of P.J.Harvey and Cub). I thought 'style' would be more appropriate. I guess I'm guilty of picking a word with connotations that run counter to my arguement... :) BTW, Piaf and Fitzgerald and a host of other women (e.g., folk artists of the 60s and 70s) created a role for women singers. I think it's great that a bunch of young women are creating roles for female bands... That's what this is about, IMO -- no longer are these bands like The Runaways -- controlled by a male behind the scenes; these bands are trying to find their own voice (and yes, it's mainly through overused styles (punk and folk offshoots)) but I don't think that the either style undermines what is going on... BTW, in part, I still idnetify with the punk movement, so I'm competely biased in this regard. <> On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, Frances Sendbuehler wrote: > dionysis@nevada.edu (aka Troy Swain) wrote: > >In one of Alan's posts he comments on how he percieves P.J. Harvey, Tori > >Amos, and (to a lesser extent) bands like Hole and Bikini Kill connoting > >a 'new wave' of women's music -- a music which deals with the body and > >engendering. > > > >I agree. > > >One of the pictures on the inner sleave of her first album shows a close > >up of red lipstick -- red lipstick associated with the 'feminine' persona of > >the whore. Yet P.J. Harvey (and Liz Phair and Salt and Pepa and the Riot > >Grrls and on and on) take the role of the whore and re-work it, re-invent > >it, make it their own badge of idenity. > > the first thing thst springs to mind here is: what's so new about > re-inventing the role of the whore? The other is: is it necessary to > re-invent this image for a badge of identity and is this, then, a > significant feature or not of the creation of identity in music? If so, > how? How is this *not* a search on their part of the essense of femininity? > > I would argue that the great red lips on the sleeve, and Phair's, err, > ready mouth on her album cover are not meant as a statement to women, but > as a statement to men. It says "Look: we profess to have a power over you, > and this is our statement. And, we can still be attractive and be > powerful". This _could_ be a statement to women in the sense of saying that > it's ok to be attractive and powerful, but I don't buy how _they_ say it, > as it's done with great big red vulval lips, and a mouth open and ready in > a familiar pose; these images don't call me. > > I like _one_ song on Phair's first disk only, and only 'cos of the drums. I > _hate_ the cover and got rid of the disk because I couldn't stand looking > at it. There aren't many bands that manage to repel me in such superficial > ways. But, wait, I have a second example: the _name_ of the band "Hole". > I'd kind of like to go hear this band, but I'm so so SO turned off by a > band composed of women that calls themselves "hole" that I just can't do > it! (Not to mention the name Courtney Love... the images of the two > together are just too much, too blatant, too gross and speak of a > re-imaging that is unnecessarily sexual). Power isn't so much sexual as it > is the finding of a voice. > > aka Troy Swain's repeated mentions focuse most often on Harvey's and > Phair's primacy, sexual fascination, the role of the sexual persona whose > sexual drive is different, the "I want you, but I sure as hell don't *need* > you" attitude, sexual control, Phair's "I want to fuck you like a dog", > sexual independence... all statements of sexuality, hence femininity. > > I do wonder, since it has been men who have commented on the strength and > power of these musicians, if the women on this list feel the same strength > and power behind this music, or is this music more appealing to men? I > don't see the draw or hear anything that calls to me in particular. I can > certainly live without the re-imaging of the whore as some kind of > messianic role for femininity/ism. Neither femininity nor femininism are > for sale, for either sex, in the attainment of power, to my mind. The idea > that it may be for sale in order to empower or engender a new feminism is > totally repugnant. > > >One of things that's intresting about this new movement is that all of > >the women are creating roles -- not searching for the 'essence' of > >femininity that early women attempted to do. They are being active -- > >creating a new style that is a force to be recogned with... > > How is that creation of a new style NOT a search for "the essence of > femininity"? That's exactly what they're doing with this heavy load of > sexuality: looking for a new attractiveness in an old way. I would think > that Edith Piaf and Ella Fitzgerald, but two good examples, created styles > that were and will be much more long lasting and memorable; styles that > continue to be powerful, styles that were not so much a search for some > essence of femininity but for a _voice_. Voices that continue to echo, as > certainly as Phair's won't. Wouldn't you agree that finding a voice is much > more important than finding out where your hole is? > > Fran Sendbuehler * Das Schicksal und Gemut Namen eines * * * * Simulacrum, simulacrum, rah, rah, RAH! |o/ \o/ X X dionysis@nevada.edu |\ / \ (aka Troy Swain) Article: 11161 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Bill Hutten Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 29 Sep 1994 00:31:24 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 40 Message-ID: <36cucc$t87@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 11:28:30 -0300 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..141:28.08.94.23.31.02"@uib.no> Frances Sendbuehler says (along with many other good points): >How is that creation of a new style NOT a search for "the essence of >femininity"? That's exactly what they're doing with this heavy load of >sexuality: looking for a new attractiveness in an old way. I would think >that Edith Piaf and Ella Fitzgerald, but two good examples, created styles >that were and will be much more long lasting and memorable; styles that >continue to be powerful, styles that were not so much a search for some >essence of femininity but for a _voice_. Voices that continue to echo, as >certainly as Phair's won't. Wouldn't you agree that finding a voice is much >more important than finding out where your hole is? In defence of Courtney, she did say somewhere (I forget where) that the "Hole" reference is (in part) to the hole _within_; she referred to Euripides' _Medea_. Perhaps she's being disingenuous. I do agree with what you're saying, Fran. Real power does consist in finding your own voice; and for women that means escaping from the "power=sexual power over men" trap. I'm pretty skeptical about the socially-transformative power of "transgressive" sexuality anyway, in that sex is perhaps, despite it's power, amoung the _most_ socialised of all human behaviours and thus the most easily co-opted, rendered private and (politically) impotent. I then to think that women working as farmers, truck drivers, lumberjacks, politicians, bank presidents, engineers, etc are going to do a lot more to advance the cause of women's power than the political/sexual posturing of the Riot Grrrls, and their acolytes. otoh: I'm listening to Hole's _Live Through This_ right now, and it's great. :) - bill | Bill Hutten - bhutten@fox.nstn.ns.ca | 6411 Cloverdale Rd. Halifax, NS Canada B3L 2N6 (902) 453 2482 | "I've been your dog ever since I knowed your name." - Son House Article: 11164 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Bill Hutten Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 29 Sep 1994 04:20:52 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 44 Message-ID: <36dbqk$4rs@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 16:51:45 -0300 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..936:29.08.94.03.20.43"@uib.no> Frances Sendbuehler says (along with many other good points): >How is that creation of a new style NOT a search for "the essence of >femininity"? That's exactly what they're doing with this heavy load of >sexuality: looking for a new attractiveness in an old way. I would think >that Edith Piaf and Ella Fitzgerald, but two good examples, created styles >that were and will be much more long lasting and memorable; styles that >continue to be powerful, styles that were not so much a search for some >essence of femininity but for a _voice_. Voices that continue to echo, as >certainly as Phair's won't. Wouldn't you agree that finding a voice is much >more important than finding out where your hole is? In defence of Courtney, she did say somewhere (I forget where) that the "Hole" reference is (in part) to the hole _within_; she referred to Euripides' _Medea_. Perhaps she's being disingenuous. I do agree with what you're saying, Fran. Real power does consist in finding your own voice; and for women that means escaping from the "power=sexual power over men" trap. I'm pretty skeptical about the socially-transformative power of "transgressive" sexuality anyway, in that sex is perhaps, despite it's power, amoung the _most_ socialised of all human behaviours and thus the most easily co-opted, rendered private and (politically) impotent. I then to think that women working as farmers, truck drivers, lumberjacks, politicians, bank presidents, engineers, etc are going to do a lot more to advance the cause of women's power than the political/sexual posturing of the Riot Grrrls, and their acolytes. otoh: I'm listening to Hole's _Live Through This_ right now, and it's great. :) - bill btw: Is this listserver _still_ confused? What address are people using? The BITNET address is what I get as a "ReplyTo" address, but it doesnt seem to work. | Bill Hutten - bhutten@fox.nstn.ns.ca | 6411 Cloverdale Rd. Halifax, NS Canada B3L 2N6 (902) 453 2482 | "I've been your dog ever since I knowed your name." - Son House Article: 11157 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: DaveBanach Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: I took it and made it my own Date: 28 Sep 1994 09:06:59 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 63 Message-ID: <36b873$esr@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 19:06:28 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC%UAFSYSB.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9409272221.AA18297@hawk.anselm.edu> from "Philippa E Holloway" at Sep 27, 94 11:10:43 am Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..430:28.08.94.08.06.42"@uib.no> Pip wrote, > Maybe one of y'all can help me figure out why this "take it > and make it their own" stuff is rubbing me the wrong way. ... > And what is IT anyway? IT's oppressive language or symbols > right? Well can you really disarm IT just by saying IT's mine now? > Is it possible to try and takeITandmakeITyourown and fail? > Perhaps this has to do with claiming one's autonomy over the symbols, the social structures, and the icons that help define who we are. There are some things we can't escape: Our identities, our bodies, our situations, and, to some extent the system of conceptual structures our society applies to us. We can't escape these things. We can't stop others, and perhaps even ourselves, from applying the categories, the words, and the concepts of our culture to us to a large degree, jst as we can't flee who we are, what our desires are, or what are bodies are. We can make these things our own, however. We can consciously accept and take control of how the the aspects of our environment that we can't control will affect us. Taking control of yourself means taking the forces pressing in on you from the world around you and determining yourself how they will affect you and what role they will play in making you what you are. You can try to shun these forces and separate yourself from the parts of reality you don't like and can't control. But by doing this you will find yourself alienated and isolated from the world you live in, and ultimately from those aspects of yourself that are affected by them. We grow without alienation by taking the other and making it our own. If someone calls a kid a nerd, they can be hurt by it and allow the agressor to define the epithat in an inuslting way. But they can also take control of how they will interpret the word, rework the epithat, robbing the taunts of their sting. You can only be made to feel inferior with yor consent. And in language, the hearer is empowered by the fact tht meaning lies in the hearer as well as the speaker. Now I don't know if I want to go too far in defending making the concept of the whore one's own and reworking it meaning as part of one's identity, but it is clear what could be intended. The connotations of the whore as immoral, as willing to engage in immorality for profit, and as an object for the use of males are obviously make the term abusive. But if the hearer chooses to rework the word, to make it their own, they might emphasise the ability to enjoy sex unrestrained by conventional morality and the strength to seek one's own fulfillment apart from the aims of others.(You might be able to think of some other things that they had in mind. I didn't try that hard.) Of course this involves a reworking of the meaning of the term's meaning, but meaning lies in the hearer as well as the speaker. It is there to be made one's own. Pip is right, of course, that simply claiming a concept or term as one's own does not disarm it or give you control over it. You have to do the work of redefining the meaning of the term, fitting it into your identity, and incorporating it into the self we project to the world. Making a concept one's own means making it part of one's self. Claiming one's autonomy in a world one doesn't control means changing yourself. But it means changing it the way you choose to, not the way an alien world wants to. Making it your own means making you a bit of it too, but then real freedom is just that: the ability to remake ourselves in the face of a world we can't control. David Banach diz on LambdaMoo and Baymoo dizz on PMCmoo Article: 11160 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Edward Hewitt Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: I took it and made it my own Date: 28 Sep 1994 23:48:38 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 72 Message-ID: <36crs6$s95@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 08:50:38 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409280939.FAA14821@netaxs.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..072:28.08.94.22.48.30"@uib.no> the REAL ehewitt On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, DaveBanach wrote: > Pip wrote, > > > Maybe one of y'all can help me figure out why this "take it > > and make it their own" stuff is rubbing me the wrong way. > ... > > And what is IT anyway? IT's oppressive language or symbols > > right? Well can you really disarm IT just by saying IT's mine now? > > Is it possible to try and takeITandmakeITyourown and fail? > > > > Perhaps this has to do with claiming one's autonomy over the symbols, the > social structures, and the icons that help define who we are. There are > control will affect us. Taking control of yourself means taking the forces > pressing in on you from the world around you and determining yourself how > they will affect you and what role they will play in making you what you > are. You can try to shun these forces and separate yourself from the parts > reworking it meaning as part of one's identity, but it is clear what could > be intended. The connotations of the whore as immoral, as willing to > engage in immorality for profit, and as an object for the use of males are > obviously make the term abusive. But if the hearer chooses to rework the > word, to make it their own, they might emphasise the ability to enjoy sex For Phair, this is explicit. One of her first statements about her first album was approx. as follows: "I knew they were going to package my sexuality for me, so I went ahead and did it myself." Phair's album, from the title to the art, exhibits awareness of her medium (rock music), already laced with weariness. there is no question the work is reactive, yet Phair beat most to the punch in laying down her truth. Perhaps the most interesting comparison I have heard in this debate has been the evocation of Ella and Aretha. Even a cursory sampling of their careers will show that the subject matter and human situations underlined by Phair have been plumbed extensively by blues singers, and brought into the mainstream by R&B artista and jazz singers. Throw in a "fuck" and a "Blowjob" into Aretha's music, and you have Liz Phair. Groove, personal expression, personality and frankness are the hallmark of the great blues singer. One possible difference is that these are Phair's own songs, and Aretha for examle was singing male-penned songs chosen by a male producer. However, go to see Aretha perform live, and you will see that what made her able to sing these songs is her own life experience-- her between song banter is scatological, almost shocking- women in the audience were yelling "Go on, girl," while men sank visibly into their seats. I, for one, was a little less easy at Aretha's show than I was at the Phair show I saw last spring, where the "Flower" encore was expected and predictable, if not all the more powerful when she sang it in person. Still, guys sang along, while men at Aretha were looking for the exits. Maybe it doesn't matter what Phair wanted, and that her presentation live is affected by her notorious stage fright, but in a past era, women singers were judged on vocal inflection on recordings and by persona onstage, nothing more. And in a less meda saturated period, the difference between the blues artist on stage and the blues artist at home was narrowed significantly. Perhaps a consideration of live performance is not the point here, but an audience visit with these artists is usually enlightening. A whole new batch of questions present themselves every night onstage. "Live music is better bumperstickers should be issued." Article: 11168 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: "a.h.s. boy" Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: I took it and made it my own Date: 29 Sep 1994 18:25:36 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 18 Message-ID: <36etag$ef6@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 01:39:41 -0500 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..520:29.08.94.17.25.21"@uib.no> At 7:50 AM 28.9.94, Edward Hewitt wrote: > Perhaps the most interesting comparison I have heard in this debate has >been the evocation of Ella and Aretha. Even a cursory sampling of their >careers will show that the subject matter and human situations underlined >by Phair have been plumbed extensively by blues singers, and brought into >the mainstream by R&B artista and jazz singers. Throw in a "fuck" and a >"Blowjob" into Aretha's music, and you have Liz Phair. Except Aretha could sing, too. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.h.s. boy ---------------------- manifesto overlord, dada typographics --------------------------------- spud on MediaMOO, Lambda MOO, PMC-MOO spud@access.digex.net ----------- WWW page: http://www.digex.net/~spud mangez du chocolat / lavez votre cerveau / dada / dada / buvez de l'eau Article: 11175 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 30 Sep 1994 06:31:28 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 100 Message-ID: <36g7rg$3d9@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 13:56:44 +0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..677:30.08.94.05.31.18"@uib.no> Rodion (aka troy swain) wrote on Tues the 27th (via somewhere else hence the double quotes...): >>Hmm... I was completely unclear... I don't think that *any* of the women >>mentioned are *identifiying* with the role of the whore, but are >>re-creating their own roles, identities, and voices that includes sexuality >>which has almost always been associated with the male version of the whore. >>I don't percieve it as a search for essence in any of the groups I >>mentioned. I percieve most of them as claiming "this is who we are, deal >>with it," and as being competely unconcerned with male notions of >>feminitity. Well, I was referring particularly to Phair and Hole and perhaps didn't make that entirely clear, but I do think that you're wrong to exclude these two bands from their imaging of the role of whore. They _are_ doing that, but they are _not_ creating any really new role that's special in any way. Both groups are Media Sellouts as far as any true Riot Grrl thang is concerned (which you offered evidence for on the part of Hole [snipped passage]); as such they do not embody any *new* image. Same old one, as far as I can see. I don't quite understand what you mean by: "but are re-creating their own roles, identities, and voices that includes sexuality which has almost always been associated with the male version of the whore." The male version of _interpretation_ of the whore, I suppose you mean...as such, I interpret this as a kind of agreement that they _are_ in fact looking for and using the image of whore: to sell their sexuality as a part of their music. The image of whore is no more than a false image of sexuality. How, then, can that image be useful? >>I didn't use the term 'voice' because (with few exceptions) I don't think >>that any of the artists have trully found a *unique* voice. My point, exactly. And so are *some* using sex to sell? Yes. Is it successful for women? I don't think so, but don't profess to speak for all women. One thing that came up in discussion with spud about this subject refered to the band named "The Slits" (sister band to the Raincoats); this name for a band is not as objectionable *to me* as is the name "Hole". I'm not sure if it's media trampling on the part of "Hole", but *just* in the value of the two words, hole indicates to me a lack or an absence, something that requires filling for completion. Slit indicates an opening, but not something that indicates an absence. Something, rather, that _can_ be opened under the right circumstances. If sexual connotation is added to the images given by those words, the images become much more striking. Thus, it seems to me, the band Hole _does_ use blatant imagery in order to achieve a purpose that cannot be achieved otherwise. The Media Sell of the image of whore, if you will. To which there is no real point if the band or feminism or femininity are looking for empowerment. It would be different if "whore" could somehow be used to "empower" women (damn, another word I hate), but that's just not possible with. "Whore" indicates something for sale: a fuck or a blowjob. There's not much more latitude within that frame; it sure isn't femininity or feminism or power that are for sale. You can't buy those. >>They are all >>unique, but not unique enough to be uncatagorizable (with the >>slightly possible exception of P.J.Harvey and Cub). I thought 'style' >>would be more appropriate. I guess I'm guilty of picking a word with >>connotations that run counter to my arguement... :) Ok..I'll accept your guilty admission!:) >>BTW, Piaf and Fitzgerald and a host of other women (e.g., folk artists of >>the 60s and 70s) created a role for women singers. I think it's great >>that a bunch of young women are creating roles for female bands... >>That's what this is about, IMO -- no longer are these bands like The >>Runaways -- controlled by a male behind the scenes; these bands are >>trying to find their own voice (and yes, it's mainly through overused >>styles (punk and folk offshoots)) but I don't think that the either style >>undermines what is going on... No...I don't agree that there are no men in control here. I think that indie labels have (obviously) less of a controlling corporate mechanism, but those bands that have gone big have a corporation behind them looking for the next sacred cash cow; all the better if it's all female and they can pimp for them. Pardon the metaphor. But ... on your other point: I've got no problem at all if overused styles are used in an attempt to find a voice. Once the voice is found, it hardly matters where they found it. I don't want to give the impression that I'm in a totally negative position towards female bands; not at all. I do, however, have a problem with a good voice going commercial and being exploited in the manner that I've talked about. This is the position from which I'd prefer to be understood. OK -- this is all far far too long, now, but Pip cuts right to the chase in her post (and DaveBanach makes some excellent points, too...) and I feel that I have to comment on it. She asks about (sorry for the paraphrase) why takingITandmakingIT your own rubs her the wrong way...perhaps because, for women, taking the image of Whore and making it one's own to "extract" some kind of power from the image (in much the same way that queer is used by gays, for example) is NOT a good way to engender power for women. The image is one of sale and false sexuality...of _images_ of sexuality that lie to both women and men. There is no truth in those images and so they cannot be empowering. Women have been called "whore" with negative connotations for far far longer than gays have been called queer and blacks have been called nigger... it's just not possible to _use the image_ and be called anything BUT whore. Fran katiemur on Lambda, Demon_Doll on PMC. Article: 11179 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Edward Hewitt Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: I took it and made it my own Date: 30 Sep 1994 08:48:12 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 19 Message-ID: <36gfrs$5pg@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 15:43:09 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409291939.PAA02713@netaxs.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..334:30.08.94.07.48.05"@uib.no> the REAL ehewitt On Thu, 29 Sep 1994, a.h.s. boy wrote: > At 7:50 AM 28.9.94, Edward Hewitt wrote: > >the mainstream by R&B artista and jazz singers. Throw in a "fuck" and a > >"Blowjob" into Aretha's music, and you have Liz Phair. > > Except Aretha could sing, too. > You're right, and Liz Phair really can't, if you consider perfect pitch and technique the most important part of singing. Phair deliberately sings out of her range for effect, your call if it's effect-ive. But my point is with respect to subject matter- is Liz Phair such a revolutionary, or is she just showing that a suburban white girl can know the blues? I'd also argue she can play guitar-- check out Cinco de Mayo on the new album. Article: 11185 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Evan Kirchhoff Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: I took it and made it my own Date: 30 Sep 1994 17:20:04 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 20 Message-ID: <36hdrk$809@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 22:36:52 -0500 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9409292342.AA26120@rigel.cc.umanitoba.ca> from "a.h.s. boy" at Sep 29, 94 01:39:41 am Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..353:30.08.94.16.19.41"@uib.no> a.h.s. boy says: > At 7:50 AM 28.9.94, Edward Hewitt wrote: > >Throw in a "fuck" and a > >"Blowjob" into Aretha's music, and you have Liz Phair. > > Except Aretha could sing, too. Oh, come on. This is one of those blindingly obvious points that ought to be beneath debate, at least amongst bright hip folks like us :) It shouldn't be necessary, in 1994, to defend the concept of interestingly failing to sing, and I won't. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > a.h.s. boy ---------------------- manifesto overlord, dada typographics Y'know, those dadaists...they couldn't paint... ;) -- Evan Kirchhoff, kirchh@cc.umanitoba.ca Article: 11200 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Alan Sondheim Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 1 Oct 1994 03:40:37 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 30 Message-ID: <36ii75$o1q@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:14:04 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199409301524.AA18580@panix.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..900:01.09.94.02.40.26"@uib.no> Two minor points here, first - the Slits were terrific, aggressive, ground-breaking, and angular and far more interesting than their descent into relative oblivion merits. Second, there are problems about the whole discussion for me - which is the denigration of whores themselves; I've known some who are involved in the arts, particularly in Canada, and who are proud of their sexuality, etc. Does sexualizing one's body in this culture necessarily play into male oppression - or can it also play into control over one's body? Does control always have to be intellectualized; sexualized control is physical control? Does prostitution represent a threat to Puritan morality and the screwed-up nuclear family in the first place? There are a lot of books such as Working Girls which go into this material; I'd also suggest you see Gwendolyn's films if you ever have a chance. As with everything else there are whores and there are stereostypes of whores and if you're reacting against the stereotype I would agree completely with you. If you're reacting against the profession and against sexual display on the part of women (or men for that matter), I have problems - first, as I said, because it's also an oppressive stance; second, because perhaps the culture needs more _overt_ sexuality and less repression, given the amount of behind-the-doors abuse and other sex crimes which might be traced back in part, and only in part, to repression, and third, because who are any of us to disparage whores or prostitution as a whole? (Pimping is another thing altogether.) Alan By the way, I'm not absolutely sure of any of the above; I just feel uneasy with the prejudice against sex workers which is so prevalent in the United States. Article: 11205 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: I took it and made it my own Date: 1 Oct 1994 09:37:54 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 40 Message-ID: <36j752$sck@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:54:37 +0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..870:01.09.94.08.37.37"@uib.no> >a.h.s. boy says: >> At 7:50 AM 28.9.94, Edward Hewitt wrote: >> >Throw in a "fuck" and a >> >"Blowjob" into Aretha's music, and you have Liz Phair. >> >> Except Aretha could sing, too. > >Oh, come on. This is one of those blindingly obvious points that ought to >be beneath debate, at least amongst bright hip folks like us :) Yeah...Aritha can sing and Phair can't. Aint' no debate about that! It >shouldn't be necessary, in 1994, to defend the concept of interestingly >failing to sing, and I won't. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's your point, isn't it? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> a.h.s. boy ---------------------- manifesto overlord, dada typographics > >Y'know, those dadaists...they couldn't paint... ;) > >-- >Evan Kirchhoff, kirchh@cc.umanitoba.ca Fran ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: * Fran Sendbuehler * Das Schicksal und Gemut Namen eines sendbuef@ere.umontreal.ca * Begriffes sind. talk:sendbuef@tornade.ere.umontreal.ca* * -- Novalis :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : Article: 11207 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: dave meesters Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: P.J.Harvey, Liz Phair, and the Riot Grrls Date: 1 Oct 1994 10:29:06 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 30 Message-ID: <36ja52$srp@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 18:47:04 -0400 Comments: To: FutureCulture List To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9409301305.AA32483@email.unc.edu> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..618:01.09.94.09.28.51"@uib.no> To me, the most interesting thing about Liz Phair is the transformation of her image in my mind. I've been a Liz Phair phan for a while, from back when the original Girlysound tape got a glowing review in _Chemical Imbalance_. When her first LP came out on Matador, I was shocked and thrilled (and apprehensive). Now I feel like she's losing her once-impressive control over her relationship with the media. But it doesn't even seem like she's trying anymore. It seriously looks like she went out of her way to sound dumb in the recent _Rolling Stone_ interview. And the new album is lame with a capital L, especially in the context of her previous efforts. Like she decided what we liked about the last album (and what the press decided we liked) and is now monotonously repeating the same tired riff. What's interesting about Cub (and this goes for a lot of the K/Olympia scene), especially the song "Hello Kitty" on the _Julep_ compilation, is how this regression to childhood insipidity (musically but especially lyrically) can be seen as a reaction to the difficulties of voice these days. When anything you say can be so readily distorted, commidified, deconstructed, misconstrued, parodied, taken out of context, stolen, and used against you, it's tempting to write a song that says "Frieda, Frieda is a cat, yes I know--she told me so! Frieda, Frieda is a cat!" Unassailable, isn't it? But my question is, what about HELIUM? Of all of the bands relevant to this thread, Helium is for me the most interesting and difficult to pin down, especially on the _Pirate Prude_ EP (Matador). My brain reels. Anyway gotta go. --dave Article: 11214 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: "a.h.s. boy" Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: I took it and made it my own Date: 1 Oct 1994 13:09:27 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 84 Message-ID: <36jjhn$1of@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 23:31:19 -0500 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..645:01.09.94.12.09.18"@uib.no> At 10:36 PM 29.9.94, Evan Kirchhoff wrote: >a.h.s. boy says: >> At 7:50 AM 28.9.94, Edward Hewitt wrote: >> >Throw in a "fuck" and a >> >"Blowjob" into Aretha's music, and you have Liz Phair. >> >> Except Aretha could sing, too. > >Oh, come on. This is one of those blindingly obvious points that ought to >be beneath debate, at least amongst bright hip folks like us :) It >shouldn't be necessary, in 1994, to defend the concept of interestingly >failing to sing, and I won't. > Well, I'm certainly not one to judge music by strictly traditional standards, and that, too, ought to be obvious (Hell, I'm listening to the Virgin Prunes' _A New Form of Beauty_, which is both off-key and very poignantly titled). Just pointing out that, in addition to having forged certain paths in _expressing the individual_ (which I think a far more significant achievement than _expressing the woman_), Aretha and Edith and Billie Holliday also contributed unique and lasting contributions to music. Liz Phair, alas, really hasn't, and I seriously doubt she will. I can't account for her enormous popularity (her new album was _shipping_ 500,000 copies, and her first was the largest grossing independant record _in history_), but I find her music terribly mundane and her media image more annoyingly overplayed than fascinating. I'd like to like her, really I would. She was my brother's roommate, and went to school with my ex-girlfriend, but she never made a truly memorable impression on me, and when I heard her music I thought of other people friends I have in "good" college/alternative rock bands (Antenna? Arson Garden? Big Dipper? The Embarrassment? Tiny Lights?) who are either _brilliant_ and totally ignored, or are unfortunately mundane and middle of the road. Liz Phair, let me say it, resembles the latter more than the former. Neither her music (certainly not innovative to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with music of the past 20 years) nor her position vis-a-vis feminism, independance, or whatever other virtues one might attribute to her role in the world of music/society, are particularly new. Historically, the Slits, the Raincoats, and X-Ray Spex made more volatile gestures in the direction of independance and sexuality decades before Liz or PJ or Hole came along. (Poly Styrene, of X-Ray Spex, was noted saying "If someone called me a sex symbol, I'd shave me 'ead tomorrer'...") In the mid-80s, bands like Crass (suss out "Penis Envy") and the Poison Girls ("I'm not a real woman") actually came out with _coherent_ critiques of gender politics combined with productive activity. More recently, bands like Scrawl (when it was just three women) and Brenda Kahn have made music as good as Liz Phair's (no?), but receive virtually no recognition. Now, don't get me wrong. I happen to dislike Liz Phair's music. I like PJ Harvey, and care only for Hole in that way that one "likes" songs on the radio. The point here is that, if we're going to argue about people making important contributions to music and/or society, let's talk about the people that have made them, and not the ones that the media have seized upon. Few of us, I hope, would believe that it's actually the _presidents_ (or prime ministers, or what have you) who are shaping and leading the country. To think that is to swallow whole a media mythology that contributes to the total mystification of the workings of modern society. Most people, given enough time and discussion, can recognize and distinguish between media images, figureheads, and people doing important, innovative, or original things. Along those lines, focusing on Liz Phair as embodying _anything_ other than a mediatized role seems like a waste of time. I fully enjoy (it's an adrenaline thing), however, discussing the _phenomenon_ of Liz Phair as media image, which is a rich topic. >Y'know, those dadaists...they couldn't paint... ;) O, but they _could_! And some of them could write like motherfuckers, too! I say this explicitly _not_ as a defense (that would not be my angle), but merely as a "fact" of sorts, at least by the standards of communicative consensus. And, just like Liz Phair, there were dadaists whose work was totally mediocre. No one remembers their names. spud. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.h.s. boy ---------------------- manifesto overlord, dada typographics --------------------------------- spud on MediaMOO, Lambda MOO, PMC-MOO spud@access.digex.net ----------- WWW page: http://www.digex.net/~spud mangez du chocolat / lavez votre cerveau / dada / dada / buvez de l'eau Article: 11229 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Negative and Positive Images Date: 2 Oct 1994 21:26:52 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 120 Message-ID: <36n52c$sqj@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 16:01:09 +0500 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..782:02.09.94.20.26.43"@uib.no> Alan: You ask some excellent questions in your first paragraph (snipped in the interest of length), some of which I address below -- and some of which would take a long time to answer, but let me clarify my position first so that I don't continue to offend with my use of the term "whore". Alan wrote on Friday Sept 30: >As with everything else there are whores and there are stereotypes of >whores and if you're reacting against the stereotype I would agree >completely with you. I am reacting against the stereotype: I am most certainly not reacting against the woman that choses such a role for herself. In the deliberate chosing of the role, *without any male intervention* (a pimp, for example), there is a certain power. However, in the stereotype, and in the using of women in the role of whore (as there are women who are used in this fashion daily, and do not chose to remain in the role themselves), there is something deliberately demeaning. I question how that image, though, bleeds over into the rl perception of the actual woman who choses to live by prostitution and how it makes her life unnecessarily dangerous. >If you're reacting against the profession and >against sexual display on the part of women (or men for that matter), I >have problems - first, as I said, because it's also an oppressive stance; >second, because perhaps the culture needs more _overt_ sexuality and less >repression, given the amount of behind-the-doors abuse and other sex >crimes which might be traced back in part, and only in part, to >repression, and third, because who are any of us to disparage whores or >prostitution as a whole? (Pimping is another thing altogether.) I have absolutely nothing against the profession or against sexual display on the part of either men or women regardless of whether or not it is a part of their profession. I do think that that display should be _voluntary_ in the sense that *they* chose to do it, and not that someone forces them to do it to support them. I've no respect whatsoever for men (or women, for that matter) who live off the avails of prostitution, and I do think that prostitution should be legalized (another discussion entirely). Yes, our culture does need more overt sexuality, without "risk" to the women or men who chose to display themselves in such a manner. There's something disturbing about being mistaken for a prostitute, you've got to admit -- both in the sense that our society "expects" certain women to look a certain way, and that if someone looks a certain way, then they must be for sale. Yes, this does rise out of a repressive mentality in our society, and such instances of mistaken identity speak of a kind of abuse that is very hard to pin down. It's something that comes out of how our society *looks* at whores: why are they not entitled to the same respect as any other person, regardless of sex or clothing? THat, I think, is what bothers me so so much about the use of the image of whore and the use of sexuality in the marketing of music, softdrinks, cars, beer, whatever: because it's clear clear clear that women who dress "like that" do NOT *ever* get the same kind of respect as "other people". So the image of whore and the lack of respect that accompanies that image is perpetuated by the *use* of the image of whore as something that's "sexy and for sale". Along with the for sale sign, there's much more than the lack of respect that accompanies that image. Is this where the behind-the-doors abuse comes from? I was once in a relationship in which I suffered a kind of mental abuse because my partner wanted me to be more voluptuous. Hell, that's just not my body tupe, but he never seemed to learn that by breasts were never going to get any larger nor my legs any less hairy. All the same, he wanted me to be something other than what I was. He had a fascination for the "image" of sexy women women (usually found in certain magazines) and kept that image as his idea of the ultimate in sexy. Needless to say, I rebelled. (The legs got deliberately hairier, then I got a divorce.) How can there not be abuse if all the possible ranges of what *is* sexy and attractive are not a part of our society? What's *wrong* with being ordinarily attractive or sexy in a way that is "other" than what is found in such magazines or on the street? Basically, I would have nothing against prostitution or magazines such as Penthouse and Playboy, if it were the women who got rich off the sale of their bodies, and if that image did not perpetuate some feelings of inferiority and a loss of power amongst women who do not look like that. Does that loss of power originate in how men look at these images? You ask: "Does sexualizing one's body in this culture necessarily play into male oppression - or can it also play into control over one's body?" I think that sexualizing one's body *shouldn't* have to play into male oppression, but that the "image" of whore _does_ play into oppression if that image constitutes a reminder of the stereotype of whore. Ideally, that sexualization *should* be a way of playing into the control over one's body, but that stereotypical image is often used as a method of control over *another's* sexuality; some men _want_ to see that voluptous sexy image that begs them to fuck the image and will pruchase that image. This, to me, is male control over the image, and is corporate structure "selling" an image, and is, therefore, male-dominated society controlling that image. This I cannot agree with, and serves no useful purpose in women's determination of their own sexuality. If women could somehow take that image and use it for their own power, then it would give us control over our own sexuality. However, I think that the stereotypical image *cannot* be used in such a fashion and speaks only to men; to domination, to a reaffirmation of old useless images that have no strength in and of themselves, and have no purpose and no benefit for women in that they make women weak. >Alan > >By the way, I'm not absolutely sure of any of the above; I just feel >uneasy with the prejudice against sex workers which is so prevalent in >the United States. Wouldn't you say that the prejudice against sex workers (in Canada, too), is, in part, a result of the use of this stereotypical image? If that image was not reinforced in commercials and media manipulation, perhaps there would be a little more respect for sexuality in general and less of a repressive attitude in accompaniment. Wouldn't you agree that pimping comes from the idea that women are not strong in their sexuality and in themselves, and that beatings of prostitutes and women comes from this, also? Do you think that women and prostitutes both male and female would get beaten up in the first place if society had not perpetuated an image of weakness to accompany the image of whore? I would like to see women strong in their sexuality, in their intellects, and in their bodies, all at the same time, without negative reinforcement from the media. We *are* all of those things, but some of us don't know it and can't use it; someone else controls the image. Long live the patriarchy...erk. Fran Article: 11236 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Philippa E Holloway Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 3 Oct 1994 04:25:50 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 32 Message-ID: <36ntju$694@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 23:22:25 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC%UAFSYSB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199410022029.QAA24115@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> from "Frances Sendbuehler" at Oct 2, 94 04:01:09 pm Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..894:03.09.94.03.25.39"@uib.no> A few thoughts on the recent exchange about women's sexuality, the whore image, takeitandmakeityourown, etc. Lots of interesting stuff has been said; I cant respond to it all right now, but here are some bits of what I've been thinking: (and, yes, I've been re-reading Haraway recently :) ) Fran said: >If women could somehow take that image and use it for their own power, then >it would give us control over our own sexuality. However, I think that the >stereotypical image *cannot* be used in such a fashion and speaks only to >men; to domination, to a reaffirmation of old useless images that have no >strength in and of themselves, and have no purpose and no benefit for women Are there other images, besides the whore, which women can/should/do own if the whore can't give women power? The cyborg is one suggestion maybe. Others? Are there images _men_ can/should, similarly, take? Men and women? Similarly, is there some way to get past this binary opposition we've set up: whore/not whore; own/not own. Haraway talks about writing from inside the "belly of the beast" -- writing about the nature/tech opposition from inside tech, thereby exploding idea that they're opposites. What would it mean to write from "inside" the whore image? Can it be owned and not owned at the same time? Pip asking questions, wondering if she should or could be more polemic! Article: 11241 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Alan Sondheim Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 3 Oct 1994 20:52:11 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 30 Message-ID: <36pndb$kcl@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 15:27:34 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199410030615.AA08970@panix.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..511:03.09.94.19.51.34"@uib.no> I agree with Frances' post completely. I think pimping, by the way, is a complex phenomenon, not easily reducible; it involves both drug and person addiction, petty capitalism - a whole host of things. Most of the cognitive psychology stuff I read (for example, Buss' The Evolution of Desire) describes experiments indicating that men respond quicker to physical stimuli in terms of arousal than women. This also seems cross-cultural. Say for sake of argument it's species-specific? Then the stereotypical image of the sex-worker, male or female, begins to make some sort of (oppressive) sense. Just speculating. Definitely, sex work of all sorts should be legitimized; it would drive the parasitic elements such as the pimps and some of the dealers, out of business. I think working girls and boys are practically heroic in their jobs; living next to the Sunset Strip in Hollywood gave me far too much exposure to johns and pimps. To say it was disgusting puts it mildly; it went as far as real violence. I agree about "patriarchy," by the way but think it's also time this word became problematized. Most of the males I know (and I admittedly know mainly cultural workers of all sorts) are equally powerless; the guys who hang out on the corner here have no jobs, etc. Patriarchy isn't monolithic; white power isn't monolithic; Christian Protestant or WASP power isn't monolithic. We've gotten rid of concepts like "The Jews are" "The Blacks are" - should this be extended to gender? Not to hide or obfuscate the issues, but to pinpoint them, target them. Just wondering, no solutions here, actions however. Alan Article: 11242 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: ampc Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 3 Oct 1994 20:53:30 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 110 Message-ID: <36pnfq$kdg@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 12:46:58 -0300 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..565:03.09.94.19.53.15"@uib.no> These are just a few scattered thoughts and ideas that I had as I read through this - they are sometimes clearly ambivalent, just like my feelings about the issue. Make of it what you will. >I have absolutely nothing against the profession or against sexual display >on the part of either men or women regardless of whether or not it is a >part of their profession. I do think that that display should be >_voluntary_ in the sense that *they* chose to do it, and not that someone >forces them to do it to support them. I've no respect whatsoever for men >(or women, for that matter) who live off the avails of prostitution, and I >do think that prostitution should be legalized (another discussion >entirely). Although I think you are speaking on a more legal level about living off the avails of prostitution, what about the prostitute themselves? Their chosen mates? Their children? Many women choose to have pimps. It is a dangerous life. A pimp may be able to provide some level of protection for them. Of course, many others have no choice in the matter. What I personally find degrading and disgusting about pimps is the power relationship and violence that a pimp usually has over his "girls". This is the key thing that really bothers me. >Yes, our culture does need more overt sexuality, without "risk" >to the women or men who chose to display themselves in such a manner. >There's something disturbing about being mistaken for a prostitute, you've >got to admit -- both in the sense that our society "expects" certain women >to look a certain way, and that if someone looks a certain way, then they >must be for sale. Yes, this does rise out of a repressive mentality in our >society, and such instances of mistaken identity speak of a kind of abuse >that is very hard to pin down. It's something that comes out of how our >society *looks* at whores: why are they not entitled to the same respect as >any other person, regardless of sex or clothing? THat, I think, is what >bothers me so so much about the use of the image of whore and the use of >sexuality in the marketing of music, softdrinks, cars, beer, whatever: >because it's clear clear clear that women who dress "like that" do NOT >*ever* get the same kind of respect as "other people". So the image of >whore and the lack of respect that accompanies that image is perpetuated by >the *use* of the image of whore as something that's "sexy and for sale". Although I agree with you on a certian level, it is clear that to a certian degree you subscribe to the stereotypical view of things as well. Part of the reason that we continue to have a highly negative view of prostitution is that we would all cringe at the thought of being mistaken for a prostitute - perhaps it would be more rational to feel complimented that our sexual favors would be considered worth buying - like if someone wanted to buy a piece of your clothing because they liked it so much. Even if it was clearly not for sale, you might feel complimented that someone liked your taste so much as to be willing to spend money for it. Certianly in many other societies prostitution is not nearly so stigmatized as it is among North Americans. >How can there not be abuse if all the possible ranges of what *is* sexy and >attractive are not a part of our society? What's *wrong* with being >ordinarily attractive or sexy in a way that is "other" than what is found >in such magazines or on the street? Basically, I would have nothing against >prostitution or magazines such as Penthouse and Playboy, if it were the >women who got rich off the sale of their bodies, and if that image did not >perpetuate some feelings of inferiority and a loss of power amongst women >who do not look like that. Does that loss of power originate in how men >look at these images? Hugh Hefner does not run Playboy - his daughter does. She is the heir-apparent to the Playboy empire. I believe that the managing editor of Penthouse is a woman as well. Then, there are the feminist porno movie production companies, such as the ones run (and owned) by Candide Royale and Fanny Fatale. Where does Annie Sprinkles fit in? Traci Lords & Amber Lynn (who have both went on to become reasonably successful non-porn actresses)? But also, what about Linda Lovelace? As for the argument that these magazines create feelings of inferiority - well, they do. No getting around it. But at least half of the problem comes from fashion magazines, which are run by and bought almost entirely by women. And on another level, we will always suffer when we don't have something that others do. Abolishing pornography is the communist's answer to sexual inequality. As a solution, it is about equally effective as it is to combat economic inequality. >If women could somehow take that (pornographic) image and use it for their own >power, then it would give us control over our own sexuality. However, I think that >the stereotypical image *cannot* be used in such a fashion and speaks only to >men; to domination, to a reaffirmation of old useless images that have no >strength in and of themselves, and have no purpose and no benefit for women >in that they make women weak. What about _On Our Backs_ or other radical lesbian magazines? Are they fooling themselves into a form of self-exploitation? Or are they recapturing a piece of feminine power for their own use? Or, on another front, what about Playgirl? >Wouldn't you say that the prejudice against sex workers (in Canada, too), >is, in part, a result of the use of this stereotypical image? If that image >was not reinforced in commercials and media manipulation, perhaps there >would be a little more respect for sexuality in general and less of a >repressive attitude in accompaniment. Wouldn't you agree that pimping comes >from the idea that women are not strong in their sexuality and in >themselves, and that beatings of prostitutes and women comes from this, >also? I think that the reason that prostitutes are regularly beaten, and that they accept pimps is that there is nowhere else for them to turn, and that the cops turn their backs on violence against prostitutes. As long as you don't kill them its OK. And this enters into the vast meat grinder of media images and creates new cycles of stereotypes that in turn create more violence against women and more pimps. I think that prostution_can_ (could?) be a strong expression of control of your own personal sexuality. I think that the best example that we have of this is Madonna, annoying as she may be in most ways. Anyways, my thoughs (incoherent as they may be). tONY pACE ampc@mailserv.mta.ca Article: 11246 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: dave meesters Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 3 Oct 1994 23:46:14 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 30 Message-ID: <36q1jm$onj@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 18:44:28 -0400 Comments: To: FutureCulture List To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9410032046.AA75039@email.unc.edu> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..110:03.09.94.22.45.48"@uib.no> Kathy Acker has had a lot to say about whores. Her character Janey says: "Women are whores now. I think women every time they fuck no matter who they fuck should get paid. When they fuck their boyfriends their husbands. That's the way things are only the women don't get paid." (from "Ney York City in 1979" in _Hannibal Lecter, My Father_) I have no trouble seeing how the image of the whore is an important and attractive one. Faced with the continued sexual domination of men, women have the options of either withdrawing from sexual relations with men (which is becoming somewhat more of an option) or seeking to empower themselves in those relations. The whore is a powerful figure because she is a woman who has realized her sexuality as an asset, a commodity that can be offered for sale in an open market. This willingness to wield her sex as something that she can give and take freely, that in this case must be earned through a cash transaction (about the most basic transaction you can get in a capitalist society), instead of something that must be coerced out from under layers of repression--this, it seems, is the source of the power. Most men are terrified of women who own their sexuality and have no qualms about using it. Of course, this is an idealized version of the whore, and the reality is that it is inscribed within a much larger patriarchal tradition that robs even this impressive image of much of its power when put into practice. There is also the problem that the whore is still confronting men on the loaded playing field of (patriarchal) capitalism. She's playing the game well, but she's still playing someone else's game. --dave Article: 11251 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: missy Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 4 Oct 1994 07:44:54 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 60 Message-ID: <36qtl6$6gn@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: missy NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 02:34:41 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9410032043.AA18921@mindvox> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..608:04.09.94.06.44.52"@uib.no> On Mon, 3 Oct 1994, ampc wrote: > Part of the reason that we continue to have a highly negative view of > prostitution is that we would all cringe at the thought of being mistaken > for a prostitute - perhaps it would be more rational to feel complimented > that our sexual favors would be considered worth buying - like if someone > wanted to buy a piece of your clothing because they liked it so much. Even > if it was clearly not for sale, you might feel complimented that someone > liked your taste so much as to be willing to spend money for it. correct me if I'm wrong but if one is going to be mistaken for a prostitute, it's going to be because of the way she *looks*, not because her "sexual favors would be worth buying." How would the person making the mistake know anything about anything about the woman in question except for the way she was presenting herself? I mean to say, if someone is going to get the idea from the way I am dressed that I am "for sale", or even just that my sexual favors are worth buying, then they are not complimenting me on my taste or even on my body, which to a great extent is something one has no control over. Of course, maybe there are some people ( because I can only speak for myself) who feel a greater connection with their bodies than with their minds, and would find such "compliments" to be truly complimentary... > >How can there not be abuse if all the possible ranges of what *is* sexy and > >attractive are not a part of our society? What's *wrong* with being > >ordinarily attractive or sexy in a way that is "other" than what is found > >in such magazines or on the street? Basically, I would have nothing against > >prostitution or magazines such as Penthouse and Playboy, if it were the > women. And on another level, we will always suffer when we don't have > something that others do. Abolishing pornography is the communist's answer > to sexual inequality. As a solution, it is about equally effective as it is > to combat economic inequality. What was being advocated wasn't the _abolition_ of pornography, but the _diversification_ of pornography. > >If women could somehow take that (pornographic) image and use it for their > own >power, then it would give us control over our own sexuality. However, I > I think that prostution_can_ (could?) be a strong expression of control > of your own personal sexuality. Promiscuity -- sex to satisfy one's _own_ self, *maybe*. Prostitution, sex to satisfy _others_ (random meaningless others at that), I don't believe that shows control over one's sexuality. It seems to me it could only be a shrewd reaction to a unpromising economic situation. > I think that the best example that we have > of this is Madonna, annoying as she may be in most cases. Are you saying that Madonna, a _performer_, is as much a prostitute as someone who actually sells her body for _sex_? ** I apologize for assuming in this post that all prostitutes are women. But I don't wanna open another can of worms, so to speak. k advocat Article: 11256 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Paula Davidson Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 4 Oct 1994 19:34:29 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 65 Message-ID: <36s77l$g6u@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Paula Davidson NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 13:46:16 -0400 Comments: To: missy Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199410040637.CAA29720@mercury.interpath.net> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..027:04.09.94.18.33.52"@uib.no> > On Mon, 3 Oct 1994, ampc wrote: > > > Part of the reason that we continue to have a highly negative view of > > prostitution is that we would all cringe at the thought of being mistaken > > for a prostitute - perhaps it would be more rational to feel complimented > > that our sexual favors would be considered worth buying - like if someone > > wanted to buy a piece of your clothing because they liked it so much. Even > > if it was clearly not for sale, you might feel complimented that someone > > liked your taste so much as to be willing to spend money for it. > On Tue, 4 Oct 1994, missy wrote: > correct me if I'm wrong but if one is going to be mistaken for a > prostitute, it's going to be because of the way she *looks*, not because > her "sexual favors would be worth buying." How would the person > making the mistake know anything about anything about the woman in question > except for the way she was presenting herself? > I mean to say, if someone is going to get the idea from the way I am dressed > that I am "for sale", or even just that my sexual favors are worth buying, > then they are not complimenting me on my taste or even on my body, which to > a great extent is something one has no control over. Of course, maybe > there are some people ( because I can only speak for myself) who feel a > greater connection with their bodies than with their minds, and would find > such "compliments" to be truly complimentary... > I spent 15 years standing at bus stops in Atlanta, GA. I did not dress in a sexy or provocative fashion. In fact I piled on as many clothes as I could. Layers and layers to bury myself, obscure myself, render myself as invisible as possible. And yet if I had a nickel for every disgusting piece of slime who cruised me, hung around me, followed me from from one stop to the next, waited outside stores til I came out so he could make (insist on) ugly sexual business propositions, well, I could retire in splendid style and take you all to Tahiti with me. I don't think one's clothes or appearance have that much to do with being mistaken for a prostitute. I think it's more a matter of appearing to be easy prey, or perhaps appearing to unowned no man's property. A woman alone on the road - it's a risk and a bother. I never felt the slightest bit complimented. And I never came away from such an encounter feeling at all desirable. What I felt was blind impotent rage. And when I would decline to do business with these men (granted I was, on occasion, less than gracious) would they move on to another little shop of horrors? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. They stopped their cars, got out and tried to beat me up. I spent too much time hiding behind tombstones (there was a cemetary near my house) because some randy consumer felt I should do business with him. I think being a prostitute must be about as healthy and rewarding a job as being a soldier of fortune. never make eye contact never speak never pause in midstride never react ================================================================ Paula Davidson T h e A l t e r n a t i v e R e a d i n g R o o m an unconventional library <> free & open to the public Wednesday - Saturday 11 - 9 40 Wall St. Asheville, NC 28801 USA (704) 252-2501 tarr@mercury.interpath.net ================================================================ Article: 11260 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 5 Oct 1994 04:29:47 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 118 Message-ID: <36t6jb$15d@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 23:26:33 +0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..395:05.09.94.03.29.37"@uib.no> (sorry for the length of this. I took the opportunity to comment on bits of several posts: those of Paula, Pip, and Dave Meesters as well as Alan...) Alan; You make some excellent points in your last paragraph, particularly about the need to problematise the word "patriarchy". I think that the powerlessness of some men is exacerbated by the _knowledge_ of that entity known as the patriarchy. What that thing is, though is _extremely_ problematic. The reality of one gender taking power over the other gender in something so innocent as a pastoral society has had massive ramifications in our current society; how will all this change in the future? Will it change in the future? To be fair, the image of the buying and selling of women does not apply to all men. I know many men who do not fall for the idea of woman-as-chattel, and who are plagued by the reality of what our society is. You ask: "We've gotten rid of concepts like "The Jews are" "The Blacks are" - should this be extended to gender?" Yes! and yes a million times. But this not only extends to "men are" but also to "women are". Women are not all Vogue models or Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. Women have intelligence and beauty and power _aside_ from those images, and those things are not recognised by men who believe that women _are_ images that are there for them to respond to. A queer friend was wondering why it was that I communicate the way that I do...I asked him if it was that I communicated somewhat as a man might: not presenting myself as an "image of woman" but rather presenting what's in my head first. He agreed and said, "yes, that's it: you're more direct than many women." Perhaps that's more my rebelliousness speaking than it is intentionality on my part, to sound more like a man than a woman. I'd rather sound like a powerful woman... Doesn't the "petty capitalism" of pimping derive out of patriarchy? Doesn't capitalism in general derive out of patriarchy? Consumerism seems to derive primarily out of the idea of the family as an entity: look good, attract a mate, get married, set up a house, raise a family, buy a TV and food and raise your kids and save and send them off to school -- perpetuate the cycle. If we change that, do we eat into capitalism at all? I'd tend to think so. Are gays hated more because they avoid "traditional lifestyles" or because they're gay? One in the same thing, I'd think. Are women going to be hated (ARE they hated) in much the same way if they chose a non-traditional role? I think that they are: women around here who avoid "traditional" images of beauty (makeup, shaved legs, fine shoes), even if heterosexual, have "lesbian" or "you're ugly" yelled at them on the street if they turn down the wolfish offerings of the testosterone-ridden slimy-male population. Dave Meesters wrote: >The whore is a powerful figure because >>she is a woman who has realized her sexuality as an asset, a commodity >>that can be offered for sale in an open market. This willingness to >>wield her sex as something that she can give and take freely, that in >>this case must be earned through a cash transaction (about the most >>basic transaction you can get in a capitalist society), instead of >>something that must be coerced out from under layers of repression--this, >>it seems, is the source of the power. Most men are terrified of women >>who own their sexuality and have no qualms about using it. > >Oh hell...are you talking about the ideal ageless whore in some utopia >somewhere? You must be talking about the woman who choses prostitution as a >viable way to make money, who is not afraid of aging, and who does not have a >pimp taking all her money and who doesn't get beaten up by her john or pimp -- >a rare bird. If that cash transaction is in the hands of men (and it is, as >they must pay her), then she has no real control over the situation, does she? >Once the commodity is no longer young and fresh, where do her power and >dignity go? What is dignified about that old hooker giving some scuzzy guy in >a car a handjob? The image works both ways here: she may feel free to use her >sexuality, but once her image is faded -- and she helped perpetuate the image >by buying into it -- she's shit out of luck, isn't she? Also: whose layers of repression are you talking about? Do all women who are not whores have layers of repression from under which men must coerce some form of sexual willingness? I find that statement rather insulting, thanks. Why is not the "transaction" between open and trusting lovers not something that is given and taken freely? Not all men are terrified of women who own their sexuality. I'd think that men would _want_ to be with women who are strong in themselves and who are interested in living a new interpretation of beauty...something that can last for a long time regardless of the physical appearances of each partner as they age. Wouldn't you say that the repression you speak of is the result of the image of beauty that is shoved down our society's collective throat from the day we are born until the day that we die? What _is_ physical beauty? Not much but something to fade as it ages. >>Of course, this is an idealized version of the whore, and the reality is >>that it is inscribed within a much larger patriarchal tradition that robs >>even this impressive image of much of its power when put into practice. >>There is also the problem that the whore is still confronting men on the >>loaded playing field of (patriarchal) capitalism. She's playing the game >>well, but she's still playing someone else's game. Well, dave, I can agree partly with you here: that it's part of the patriarchal tradition and so robs women of much of the inherent power that could be hers. But I cannot agree that the stereotypical image of whore is an "impressive image". It's one of repression and is a denial of the reality of women -- the customer is always right, you know. The issue here is that women don't have to (and shouldn't have to) dress up like little sex dolls to get fucked or to have men think us attractive, and I hate it that some people still think that we do. It cannot be anything but a repressive ideal that cannot be combatted effectively until the images that are thrown at all of us are recognised as unproductive and draining.... and why must any of us suffer as Paula so lucidly describes? I'm sure it, or something like it, has happened to most of us. How do YOU feel about it? I _detest_ being mistaken for a hooker; I, too, never dress "that way" or "ask for it". Pip asked: >Are there other images, besides the whore, which women >can/should/do own if the whore can't give women power? The cyborg is one >suggestion maybe. Others? Are there images _men_ can/should, similarly, take? >Men and women? What's wrong with each of us being ourselves? Why do we have to have images to guide us -- are we not acceptable entities in and of ourselves? We are in this "place" -- only one person here knows how I really sound, what I look like, how I smell. Is my net.personna unacceptable how it is? Do any of you really need to know what I look like to be a complete person? How many of you would I shock with my physical person Fran, revelling in electric fur! Article: 11261 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: "a.h.s. boy" Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Negative and Positive Images whores Date: 5 Oct 1994 04:58:31 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 48 Message-ID: <36t897$1j9@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 23:59:50 -0500 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..892:05.09.94.03.58.22"@uib.no> At 5:44 PM 03.10.94, dave meesters wrote: >The whore is a powerful figure because >she is a woman who has realized her sexuality as an asset, a commodity >that can be offered for sale in an open market. This willingness to >wield her sex as something that she can give and take freely, that in >this case must be earned through a cash transaction (about the most >basic transaction you can get in a capitalist society), instead of >something that must be coerced out from under layers of repression--this, >it seems, is the source of the power. As you say, this is an idealized version of the whore. The above could (and would have been, at one time) also be rephrased to read "The whore...has realized her sexuality as her only asset, and reduced her identity to a commodity that can be offered for sale in an open market." The distinction is fine, but all-too-important. I think it's up to individual cases to decide which one applies. >Of course, this is an idealized version of the whore, and the reality is >that it is inscribed within a much larger patriarchal tradition that robs >even this impressive image of much of its power when put into practice. >There is also the problem that the whore is still confronting men on the >loaded playing field of (patriarchal) capitalism. She's playing the game >well, but she's still playing someone else's game. Bingo. One of the things that I've always hated about Madonna. It's as if she thinks that empowering herself at the expense of anyone in her way (and thousands of paying customers) is a really positive contribution to society or the history of gender relations. The same traits one despises in the cutthroat egomaniacal power-hungry executive are supposed to be appreciable in Madonna? I don't think so. That's the point at which I'm ready to get _beyond_ gender politics and get back to work in the arena of _human_ politics. I always have a hard time relating to the position of overemphasizing gender traits (which all too frequently falls back on forms of universal categorizing that I just don't buy), and prefer to look forwards to the transgression of judgement by gender. O, but that's a typically male position, innit? spud. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.h.s. boy ---------------------- manifesto overlord, dada typographics --------------------------------- spud on MediaMOO, Lambda MOO, PMC-MOO spud@access.digex.net ----------- WWW page: http://www.digex.net/~spud mangez du chocolat / lavez votre cerveau / dada / dada / buvez de l'eau Article: 11263 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Evan Kirchhoff Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 5 Oct 1994 06:05:57 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 29 Message-ID: <36tc7l$2io@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 00:02:50 -0500 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9410022027.AA12805@rigel.cc.umanitoba.ca> from "Frances Sendbuehler" at Oct 2, 94 04:01:09 pm Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..373:05.09.94.05.05.46"@uib.no> Frances Sendbuehler says: > So the image of > whore and the lack of respect that accompanies that image is perpetuated by > the *use* of the image of whore as something that's "sexy and for sale". Not trying to back up the current conversation, which has rolled merrily along beyond this point already, but it strikes me as odd that we got onto this "image of the whore" discussion as a spinoff of discussing the music of Liz Phair, Hole, etc. I don't really see how the "whore" image applies there in the first place. I've always seen that sub-genre (let's call it "loud and aggressive female rock and roll performers concerned at least partially with sex") as driving a rather large wedge between "sexy" and "for sale", as well as messing around with what constitutes "sexy" in the first place. If anything, it seems like the image being played with is an inversion of a stereotypical _male_ image: "I like sex, and I'm not afraid to talk about it, and I'm going to demand it even if I'm ugly (at least musically or emotionally ugly), and the fact that you might be attracted to me puts me under no obligation to you whatsoever, and by the way if I get angry I'm not going to be the least bit polite, and you're just going to have to deal with that." I don't know what you'd call this, especially in the female sense, but "whore" doesn't really cover it. And I know all of this probably happened in the music of, say, 1978, but mass culture is slow, and this stuff still has (welcome) culture-prodding power that is only beginning to be realized. -- Evan Kirchhoff, kirchh@cc.umanitoba.ca Article: 11272 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Alan Sondheim Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 5 Oct 1994 16:09:46 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 29 Message-ID: <36ufjq$3bp@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 10:46:12 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199410050630.AA08940@panix.com> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..916:05.09.94.15.09.10"@uib.no> I for one would rather be with a strong intellectual woman. That said, to move to one of your points (there are so many and I primarily agree with them - i.e. Frances' post), I do think capitalism would exist without patriarchy; in fact, I think the loosening of traditional exchange systems is inevitable with the explosion of technology. For the sake of argument, because I'm on obviously weak ground here, I would say that capitalism represents a somewhat natural evolution of mediated communica- tion upon a planet in which belief systems become relativized as groups lose hegemonic power over their participants. In other words, as cultures collide, values relativize and/or harden; as they collide further, anomie sets in. Meanwhile, exchange increases, increasing regulation and bureau- cracy. As technology heats up (which it need not, but when this occurs), mediation also heats up, and mediated values become reified - i.e. money. THis reification leads to a semi-autonomous sphere of schizophrenic flows and discharges - the exchange system. Regulation, socialisms, socializa- tions, generally occur only when boundaries are drawn, iron curtains, etc. The most workable systems seem to be permeable boundaries, benevolent capital socialism, re. Canada, Scandinavia, at times. Capital operates there as well. Consider capitalism a form of lubricant in this regard. Finally, there is also marginal capital, informal economies such as de Soto describes in The Other Path. Marginal, it can still occupy more than 50% of the economy, and again, is a localized lubricant operating among neighborhood intensities. Gender plays a role in the determination of the culture of capital, but I think it is a consequence of other domains, at least in part, than patriarchy. Alan Article: 11277 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: dave meesters Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 5 Oct 1994 22:11:28 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 57 Message-ID: <36v4q0$k4f@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:45:43 -0400 Comments: To: FutureCulture List To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9410050347.AA95443@email.unc.edu> Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..660:05.09.94.21.11.10"@uib.no> Let's see... I wrote: > >>The whore is a powerful figure because > >>she is a woman who has realized her sexuality as an asset, a commodity > >>that can be offered for sale in an open market. This willingness to > >>wield her sex as something that she can give and take freely, that in > >>this case must be earned through a cash transaction (about the most > >>basic transaction you can get in a capitalist society), instead of > >>something that must be coerced out from under layers of repression--this, > >>it seems, is the source of the power. Most men are terrified of women > >>who own their sexuality and have no qualms about using it. I missed who wrote this next bit. It was quoted in Frances's post but I don't think I ever got the original: > > > >Oh hell...are you talking about the ideal ageless whore in some utopia > >somewhere? You must be talking about the woman who choses prostitution as a > >viable way to make money, who is not afraid of aging, and who does not have a > >pimp taking all her money ... [rest deleted] Yeah, that's pretty much it. I guess I should have emphasized more that I was talking about a highly idealized image. Whether this image, being so far from the actual daily reality of most prostitutes, is even worth consideration is, I suppose, arguable. I think it is (worth consideration). I would certainly never recommend a career in prostitution to anyone based on that idealized image. On Tue, 4 Oct 1994, Frances Sendbuehler wrote: > > Also: whose layers of repression are you talking about? Do all women who > are not whores have layers of repression from under which men must coerce > some form of sexual willingness? Sorry. Didn't mean to insult. I'd jumped over to another extreme without indication. Certainly all women who aren't whores are not suffering under layers of repression that must be breached by men, although repression is, without a doubt, historically one of the more popular methods of dealing with sexual desire. And this goes for both men and women, though men are traditionally the ones doing most of the coercing. > Not all men are terrified of women who own their sexuality. You're absolutely right. And here I am guilty of playing "us and them." I was speaking from experience about the majority of men I've encountered and in general about "men"--the rhetorical construction meant to signify "men allied with the patriarchy (sic)" or some similar idea that is probably intellectually dangerous/irresponsible. Ergh, I wanted to get to more but now I'm going to be late for work. Maybe later. Seeya, --Dave Article: 11280 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 5 Oct 1994 23:31:19 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 103 Message-ID: <36v9fn$m75@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 16:53:59 +0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..603:05.09.94.22.31.06"@uib.no> ampc (tony pace) wrote: > Although I agree with you on a certian level, it is clear that to a >certian degree you subscribe to the stereotypical view of things as well. I did preface my argument by stating that that was my position: a comment on the stereotype, and not any actual person or prostitute. >perhaps it would be more rational to feel complimented >that our sexual favors would be considered worth buying [snip] Even >if it was clearly not for sale, you might feel complimented that someone >liked your taste so much as to be willing to spend money for it. I would never, NEVER (let me emphasise: NEVER) feel "complimented" if some slime-ball cruising on Ste-Catherine Street wanted to pick me up. How could/would I feel complimented by a proposition from someone who would fuck anything? The thought nauseates me and disgusts me. I challenge you to go out there one night in drag and see how it feels -- don't even pose as a hooker, just walk around and see how many charmers offer you their "services". Ick Ick Ick. > Hugh Hefner does not run Playboy - his daughter does. She is the >heir-apparent to the Playboy empire. I believe that the managing editor of >Penthouse is a woman as well. Then, there are the feminist porno movie >production companies, such as the ones run (and owned) by Candide Royale and >Fanny Fatale. Where does Annie Sprinkles fit in? Traci Lords & Amber Lynn >(who have both went on to become reasonably successful non-porn actresses)? >But also, what about Linda Lovelace? Ah...but do the women who pose for those magazines become wealthy from the advertising sold to those mags and the subsequent sale of the mags (or films or whatever)? I doubt it. Some of those feminist porno movie people do not produce "typical" films...they produce films that are, for the most part, directed _at_ women. You know...lesbian erotica? Annie Sprinkle (no "s") makes films that are instructive and amusing, and, again, are for the most part directed at women....I commented on her in another post. What about Linda Lovelace? Did she ever get as wealthy as the people who made and distributed her films? (I doubt it -- just got a rep. for giving great head. Surely she can do _other_ things?) > As for the argument that these magazines create feelings of inferiority >- well, they do. No getting around it. But at least half of the problem >comes from fashion magazines, which are run by and bought almost entirely by >women. And on another level, we will always suffer when we don't have >something that others do. Abolishing pornography is the communist's answer >to sexual inequality. As a solution, it is about equally effective as it is >to combat economic inequality. I said nothing about abolishing pronography, and I find fashion magazines just as distasteful as "girlie mags" for the image that they project as for the fact that it's not women who make money off of those things. The wealth goes to corporations -- in advertising, products, make up...whatever. THe image sellers get wealthy, not the image. > What about _On Our Backs_ or other radical lesbian magazines? Are they >fooling themselves into a form of self-exploitation? Or are they recapturing >a piece of feminine power for their own use? > Or, on another front, what about Playgirl? Just look at the women in _On Our Backs_: lesbian erotica is one place where a negative image of women is not pushed. Real women, real attractiveness (not a layer of makeup and lingerie) are portrayed. No, it's not self-exploitation in the sense that I doubt there are many people making money off those magazines (in that they are not "big" like Penthouse, etc), and that if anyone is making money there, it's probably women. Sorry, I don't know the behind-the-scenes thing there... as for _Playgirl_, I don't know any women that buy that. > I think that the reason that prostitutes are regularly beaten, and that >they accept pimps is that there is nowhere else for them to turn, and that >the cops turn their backs on violence against prostitutes. As long as you >don't kill them its OK. Other women are regularly beaten, too...what do you make of that? It's NOT ok to beat up anyone. Not a prostitute, not a pimp, not your girlfriend or wife, not your children. Why does the hatred that perpetuates beatings even exist out there? Perhaps it's partly due to "images" and that it's practically impossible to fulfill the "image" that everyone wants. > I think that prostution_can_ (could?) be a strong expression of control >of your own personal sexuality. ^^^^^^^^ Of _my_ identity? Heh...I don't think so. I don't plan on reverting to a negative stereotype. 'Sides, it's not my style. >I think that the best example that we have >of this is Madonna, annoying as she may be in most ways. All that Madonna proves is that women can be big assholes, too. Fran ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: * Fran Sendbuehler * Das Schicksal und Gemut Namen eines sendbuef@ere.umontreal.ca * Begriffes sind. talk:sendbuef@tornade.ere.umontreal.ca* * -- Novalis :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : Article: 11286 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Frances Sendbuehler Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 6 Oct 1994 19:01:04 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 35 Message-ID: <371e10$9be@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 11:55:10 +0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..542:06.09.94.18.00.34"@uib.no> Evan (two-h's) Kirchhoff wrote: but it strikes me as odd that we got onto >this "image of the whore" discussion as a spinoff of discussing the music >of Liz Phair, Hole, etc. I don't really see how the "whore" image applies >there in the first place. Well, it wasn't me who brought it up in the first place, it was Rodion. He bravely declared (then reworked his statement) that the blatant sexuality of some musicians is "associated with the 'feminine' persona of the whore". and that: "P.J. Harvey (and Liz Phair and Salt and Pepa and the Riot Grrls and on and on) take the role of the whore and re-work it, re-invent it, make it their own badge of idenity." So don't blame me for starting that conversation. >If anything, it seems like the image being played with is an >inversion of a stereotypical _male_ image: "I like sex, and I'm not afraid >to talk about it, and I'm going to demand it even if I'm ugly (at least >musically or emotionally ugly), and the fact that you might be attracted >to me puts me under no obligation to you whatsoever, and by the way if I >get angry I'm not going to be the least bit polite, and you're just going >to have to deal with that." I don't know what you'd call this, especially >in the female sense, but "whore" doesn't really cover it. I'd call that "image" (above) one of a selfish and demanding person, regardless of gender. If this stance has some use in performance world, and Madonna's used the image, then (to repeat myself), it only proves that women can be assholes, too. It's the behavioural thing that I find objectionable -- I think that no one should have to deal with other people's nasty demandingnesses, regardless of who it's directed at. (Remeber Madonna-wannabes and how annoying they were? LIke that). That "in your face" thing is fine within certain performative contexts, but to imply that it's a pleasant way for others to shove themselves in your face on a daily basis is off the mark. But that's just me. Fran Article: 11326 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: ampc Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 7 Oct 1994 19:37:32 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 109 Message-ID: <3744hc$4om@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 15:28:29 -0300 To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..246:07.09.94.18.37.01"@uib.no> > ampc (tony pace) wrote: > >> Although I agree with you on a certian level, it is clear that to a >>certian degree you subscribe to the stereotypical view of things as well. > >I did preface my argument by stating that that was my position: a comment >on the stereotype, and not any actual person or prostitute. Fair enough. >>perhaps it would be more rational to feel complimented >>that our sexual favors would be considered worth buying [snip] Even >>if it was clearly not for sale, you might feel complimented that someone >>liked your taste so much as to be willing to spend money for it. > >I would never, NEVER (let me emphasise: NEVER) feel "complimented" if some >slime-ball cruising on Ste-Catherine Street wanted to pick me up. How >could/would I feel complimented by a proposition from someone who would >fuck anything? The thought nauseates me and disgusts me. I challenge you to >go out there one night in drag and see how it feels -- don't even pose as a >hooker, just walk around and see how many charmers offer you their >"services". Ick Ick Ick. Pretty much everyone on this list would agree with you, I suspect. I was trying to get at an alternate way of looking at things, a sort of historical perspective. Maybe it wasn't the right one. But I find the standard feminist perspective of pornography as exploiting women and seeing prostitutes as degraded tools of patriarchy to be somehow - wrong. And uninteresting to boot. I'm not saying that's what _you_ believe, or were trying to say, but that's what I was reacting against when I wrote that. I remember seeing a bit by some well known feminist where she was approached by a table dancer at a club that she was ptesting at who said "listen honey, this is the best job i've ever had...". But I can't remember the name of the feminist, or the specifics of the story - I'm sure you heard it before though. That's the sort of idea that I'm trying to reach for here. >Ah...but do the women who pose for those magazines become wealthy from the >advertising sold to those mags and the subsequent sale of the mags (or >films or whatever)? I doubt it. No, but this is in no way limited to pornography. Seems to be a problem with a lot of capitalism. >Some of those feminist porno movie people >do not produce "typical" films...they produce films that are, for the most >part, directed _at_ women. You know...lesbian erotica? Annie Sprinkle (no >"s") makes films that are instructive and amusing, and, again, are for the >most part directed at women....I commented on her in another post. Except that I know guys who buy lesbian erotica. They find it less offensive, sexier, and less guilt inducing (and one of them wants to get a sex change to _be_ a lesbian, but that's another story). And I agree, they aren't typical films - but still, they are part of pornography. I don't think they'd argue with that. > What >about Linda Lovelace? Did she ever get as wealthy as the people who made >and distributed her films? (I doubt it -- just got a rep. for giving great >head. Surely she can do _other_ things?) She got beaten up on a regular basis by her 'managers'. If you actually watch _Deep Throat_, you can see the bruises on her legs. I was questioning my own line of thought. Sorry that it wasn't clear. >I said nothing about abolishing pronography, and I find fashion magazines >just as distasteful as "girlie mags" for the image that they project as for >the fact that it's not women who make money off of those things. The wealth >goes to corporations -- in advertising, products, make up...whatever. THe >image sellers get wealthy, not the image. Not to be too combative, but that's where the arguments against pornography always seem to end up - I was trying to show that it isn't an evil monolith. As for fashion mags - well, yes, I agree. Again though, it's the way of coporate capitalist America. It's not just a male/female thing >as for_Playgirl_, I don't know any women that buy that. I do. Well, one. As a joke mostly. Maybe I'll stop before I bury all my arguments. ;) >> I think that the reason that prostitutes are regularly beaten, and that >>they accept pimps is that there is nowhere else for them to turn, and that >>the cops turn their backs on violence against prostitutes. As long as you >>don't kill them its OK. > >Other women are regularly beaten, too...what do you make of that? It's NOT >ok to beat up anyone. Not a prostitute, not a pimp, not your girlfriend or >wife, not your children. Why does the hatred that perpetuates beatings even >exist out there? Perhaps it's partly due to "images" and that it's >practically impossible to fulfill the "image" that everyone wants. I don't know - but it seems to happen every where, no matter how much those images are surpressed. I wish I did know. But it does seem to happen more to prostitutes. And I think part of the reason is that they recieve no respect at all, particularly from the police, who are supposed to protect them. Of course, spousal abuse has been pretty much the same way in the past. >> I think that prostution_can_ (could?) be a strong expression of control >>of your own personal sexuality. > ^^^^^^^^ >Of _my_ identity? Heh...I don't think so. I don't plan on reverting to a >negative stereotype. 'Sides, it's not my style. Well, I was speaking generally. I don't know you. ;) >>I think that the best example that we have >>of this is Madonna, annoying as she may be in most ways. > >All that Madonna proves is that women can be big assholes, too. Point taken. But she sure did make a lot of money out of it. :) >Fran > tONY Article: 11327 of fa.future-culture Path: nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Marius Watz Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images Date: 7 Oct 1994 20:44:39 +0100 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3748f7$6l3@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 20:36:43 +0100 Comments: To: futurec@uafsysb.uark.edu To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <"alfie.uib..246:07.09.94.18.37.01"@uib.no> (message from ampc on Fri, 7 Oct 1994 15:28:29 -0300) Original-Message-ID: <"alfie.uib..058:07.09.94.19.44.15"@uib.no> Tony writes: I remember seeing a bit by some well known feminist where she was approached by a table dancer at a club that she was ptesting at who said "listen honey, this is the best job i've ever had...". But I can't remember the name of the feminist, or the specifics of the story - I'm sure you heard it before though. That's the sort of idea that I'm trying to reach for here. That was Laurie Anderson at a Playboy club, I believe. Got the written text at home, will transcribe and post it later. tONY Marius, who is very much interested in this thread, but mulling it over and over in his head. NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: m.i.watz@usit.uio.no http://www.uio.no/~mwatz/ From owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU Sat Oct 8 07:29:16 1994 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 01:28:04 -0500 Reply-To: Future Culture <@lilje.uib.no:FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.bitnet> Sender: Future Culture <@lilje.uib.no:FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.bitnet> From: Evan Kirchhoff Subject: Re: Negative and Positive Images To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC <@lilje.uib.no:FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.bitnet> In-Reply-To: <9410080053.AA11106@rigel.cc.umanitoba.ca> fro