At Aladdin’s Lamp yesterday, I found an original copy of the Young Marble Giants LP “Colossal Youth.” BRILLIANT.
Today: I’ve been listening to Beat Happening (You Turn Me On), and five of the songs on the album are produced by Stuart Moxham, of Young Marble Giants.
YMG = Cardiff, Wales, 1980
You Turn Me On = Olympia, 1992
SO EXCITING! (Oh, music nerd that I am.)
If you’ve never seen Calvin dance before, then here’s your chance:
[youtube 1D6lJbFdXdc]
For women making music in the nineties, the decade is pretty much bookended by riot-grrl on one end, and the Lilith Fair-era on the other.
The overlooked in-betweeners and off-shoots? Not the dated alt-rock of Julianna Hatfield or even Mary Timony; rather, crunchy pop-rocks riffage of the Oly-D.C. connexion. 60’s girl-group shell over riot-grrl heart, making hooks that stick like bubblegum and sting like scraped knees.
Bands like SLANT 6, who released split 7-inches with the Make-Up and who lace the Kill Rock Stars band factsheets with related projects,
[youtube BA2VznIX6kI]
The arena riffs and righteous fury of THE BANGS,
[youtube QmyQwpla-W0]
The Google-elusiveness of RIKKI TIKKI TAVI,
And THE FRUMPIES, who included most of the members of Bikini Kill, and whose "EUNUCH NIGHTS" should be required reading for 17-yr-old guitar girls.
[youtube jusxrzp1E_o]
Whenever it’s girls with shredding guitars and singable melodies, it gets called "pop;" power-pop, fractured/damaged pop, sugary pop hooks. Girls (women ) as candy. "Pop" used to describe girl bands, oftentimes as synonymous with femaleness, because,
"One of the worst insults one can hurl at hard rock musicians is that their music is pop drivel. It’s sort of like calling a boy a sissy. The pop star serves as a feminized (and thus inferior) opposite to the masculine (superior) rock musician." - Mimi Schippers
I want to get away from these descriptions of music made by women that use diminutive words; they take the teeth out, make it childish, gloss over the fierceness. I do it, too; just look at the first few lines of what I wrote. Edit? No- let’s be real, we’re all working through our internalized shit.
Better description for the stuff made by punk girl bands?
Sweet revenge.
Fact: I am a huge hypochondriac.
My morbidly overactive imagination allows me, late at night, to develop both elaborate escape/defense plans, should a serial killer enter my home or place of work; also, I fabricate possible tumors, diseases, etc.
Very occasionally, though, these late-night maladies actually translate into daytime consciousness, and then it’s straight to the Health Center for me.
Most recently: aches, pains, upset stomach- as far as I am concerned, these are sure signs of cancer/MS/ALS/multiple degenerative neurological diseases that will strike me dead or worse; everyone will mourn my loss, etc.
The dr. says that my body is too stressed out & I need to take a chill pill. Well, not in those words, precisely, but that was the gist of it.
Where do I begin.
This thing makes me ache and makes me joyful. I’ve loved it for a long time, and I’d really like to share it with some folks, because I don’t think it has gotten its due.
I hope you feel this the way I feel this.
[youtube Abp4eefCs5Q]
Ladies of the Night - “Moonlight.”
COMPLICITY IN THE MALE GAZE, a little bit. I’m way not into that, so let’s hang out & create our own thing.
Owner of a vag? Planning to vote for Hillary Clinton?
First of all, Erica C. Barnett wrote an article a while back that pretty much sums things up: “Hillary Clinton Has a Vagina and So Do I.” Subtitle: Am I Obligated to Support Hillary Clinton Based on Her Gender Alone?
It’s a pretty smart way to start such an article, and I was stoked. But Erica C. Barnett concludes (pretty unconvincingly) that yeah, she is obligated to support H.C. based on their shared ownership of a certain variety of genitalia. Kind of a let-down. That rhetoric strikes me as pretty … liberal feminist-y. Not really my type.
Then, Gloria Steinem goes and write an op-ed piece in the N.Y. Times that makes a lot of the same points. Again, not so much my cup of tea. She argues that women under age 60 (aka the ones who voted for Obama, instead of Clinton) just aren’t as radical as their moms/grandmas. Apparently we are in denial about sexism (unlike our second-wave forbears), and are therefore mistakenly choosing to vote for Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton:
“What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”
Gloria S. also tries to say that sexism is “probably the most restricting force in American life.” This is a pretty basic fem. theory faux pas, trying to prioritize some forms of oppression over others. Intersectionality, please.
Julianne Shepherd says it pretty well:
“It seems like Steinem is calling young women voters who endorse Obama (and don’t endorse Clinton on the grounds that she is female) bad feminists! (And what of black feminists? Based on this logic, should they vote Oprah on the write-in ballot?) Are you serious!? … Cause Gloria Steinem’s 1970s representational feminism, here, feels mesozoic.”
More words that say it better than I can, from feministing:
“I don’t have a feminist obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton, or donate money to her campaign, or show up at her rallies. My obligation is to support her right to compete on an equal playing field.”
I am not certain yet about who I will vote for. But this quiz is helpful- although I think some info might be a little out of date. You answer a short-ish quiz, and based on your answers, it generates info on which candidates are the best political fit for you.
The NY Times is making a big deal about how Juno is the feminist answer to Knocked Up.
The Times doesn’t throw the F-word around lightly, but A.O. Scott has used it both of the times he’s written about Juno lately.
I’m glad he’s using the word in a positive sense, but I don’t think it’s entirely merited. The thing is, the central issue of both movies (pregnancy, obviously) goes pretty much unexamined.
Like, the decision that both Alison and Juno make- once they find out they’re pregnant, to have the baby- happens pretty much without comment. Juno makes it all the way to the clinic, but when the receptionist-girl starts talking about boysenberry condoms, she is so freaked out that she changes her mind. Really? You are carrying A BABY, and a weird-smelling doctor’s office drives you away?
Same with Alison. She talks to her mom, who says some pretty for-real things, but who comes off as kind of over-practical, and (cough) … career-driven. That’s the only real conversation about abortion (aka “getting it taken care of”- it’s 1952, apparently). And then, BAM! Alison’s calling Seth Rogen to be like, “I’m having this baby.”
And you know, that’s okay. I don’t mean that it’s not feminist because they don’t have abortions. What I would like, though, is a little more explanation about why they made that decision. To have them making a really life-changing choice without offering any actual reasoning- that feels like a cop-out. There is clearly a lot more going on in their heads than they let on- Alison’s dream-job, Juno’s reputation and future.
Maybe, upon repeat viewings, their reasoning would be more obvious. But if you’re having your main female characters deal with the TERRIFYING concept of unplanned pregnancy, it would be really nice if you would explain to your audiences WHY they female characters made the choice they did. If only in the interests of character development. That seems like a pretty central plot point.
That’s why I’m skeptical about A.O. Scott declaring Juno to be so feminist, in comparison to Knocked Up. I feel like both films deny agency to their female characters by not explaining their decision. By not explaining it, the filmmakers imply that the choice was made capriciously (like, based on weirdo vibes and a strange pro-life protest at Planned Parenthood). Because their choice is made without context, it appears that Juno and Alison made their decisions based on (oh shit!)- emotion, rather than logic. Which is a really old and gross stereotype.
That said, I really enjoy A.O. Scott’s line, in his original review of Juno: “Despite what most products of the Hollywood comedy boys’ club would have you believe, it is possible to possess both a uterus and a sense of humor.”
Good one, bro. Sock it to ‘em.
This has been a spectacularly unproductive break.
Things I have done:
-spent uncountable amounts of time on the internet/on the couch/watching movies/hanging out on the couch with Lindsey or other roommates while on the internet and/or watching movies
-discovered I can record directly onto my computer! This is fantastic! Now I can make bedroom pop.
-re-read both “The BFG” and “Matilda;” actually, this was probably the most productive thing I accomplished. Does re-reading books for the 11th time count as “productivity”? Doesn’t matter. Can we have a moment to appreciate the brilliance of these words: “Fleshlumpeater,” “snozzcumber,” “bogthumping trogglehumper”? I think Roald Dahl’s linguistic inventions infiltrated my childhood consciousness without my awareness. “Whizzpopper”? Totally hilarious when I was eight.
I’ve spent a lot of time hanging out with my really fantastic roommates (and not really anyone else). I’ve been surviving on pasta, Cheerios, and chocolate (too lazy to leave the house for groceries, socializing, etc.) Watched a bunch of movies and read very few books.
It’s been so great. (Except for the not-reading-books part. Reading new books is the best part of post-Christmas downtime, and I didn’t get any new ones this year. It’s time to venture to the library.)
Things I look forward to in 2008:
-figuring out what I would like to do with my life (at least have some sort of plan for the next handful of years)
-playing music with lots of people/getting more girls to play music in Bellingham
-spending more time with the people I love
-being more positive (YES-WAVE = the new posi-core).
On the many fantastic journeys I have taken on the internet recently, I have made many exciting discoveries. The latest: girlswholikeporno, from Barcelona:
“Girlswholikeporno are neither lesbians, nor definitely not bisexuals and heterosexuals. They believe in the postporn feminist queer theory as their grandmothers believe in the holy father. They neither believe in femininity, nor in the conception of porn for women, as that label is associated with a porn full of the traditional values of femininity, in other words romantic music, gentle and smooth sex and heterosexuality.
Multiplicity of desires can not be categorised.”
There seems to be a fair amount of folks who want to make feminist/queer/fat/etc-friendly D.I.Y. porn, which is fantastic. The internet makes a lot of really amazing things possible- democratizing of access to media, etc. Lots of women of our generation are learning to claim their sexualities- Passion Parties, consuming porn, kink- as Dan Savage says, “Handcuffs are so boring- that’s not even kinky anymore! A little light bondage- everybody does that.”
More and more folks are making porn that is, in the words of No Fauxxx: “sex-positive, subversive alternative porn site with cute pin-up girls, hot boys, chubby chicks, gorgeous BBW babes, steaming hot couples, punk, goth, hippy, natural, pierced, tatooed, shaved and unshaven models, sexy trans-gender/transexxual models (FTM & MTF), erotica, straight, gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual models, black models, asian models, soft-core, hard-core, and realistic SM and bondage.”
And again, it is really fantastic, hot, and essential that diverse folks are represented in porn (and any form of media).
But honestly? These don’t really do it for me much more than regular porn. It’s alternative, yeah- but alternative in the same way that kids are who have sweet tattoos, but then you talk to them & find out they are politically apathetic. Like, what? You have the appearance of trangression- but where’s the substance?
Of course, this is sex we’re talking about- that most personal and subjective of experiences. Can we please discuss whether you agree with me on this, after comparing GWLP to other alt. porn sites you may have experience with?
Because I don’t feel like the way a lot of these sites operate/are designed is very subversive. There is still the idea of subscriptions,
conventional definitions of sex;
the point, the goal, being the sex itself, without artistry in the medium (which is as nontransgressive as regarding the orgasm, rather than the experience itself, as the end-aim).
I WANT POETRY WITH MY PORN.
I WOULD LIKE CRITICAL ESSAYS WITH MY CUMSHOTS.
(i’m kidding, but only kind of)
Girls Who Like Porno is doing a really good job of just that. Deeply subversive videos that include sex. And are sometimes really human and beautiful, too, like El striptease de mi abuela.
Which seems a lot more human to me. Like Shortbus. And- did I mention?- HILARIOUS.
A short (and tame) (but still subversive) example of GWLP’s work:
[youtube AKGn7aIR-WY]
And, lastly, they use Lesbians on Ecstasy songs in some of their videos. SO HOT.
