The 2003 Slate Music Club

I know the intellectually responsible thing to do is digest and appraise any halfway solid/ambitious music writing regardless of source, but I guess I'm a loser.

Really jaymc? I'll give them a second look then. I haven't looked at Slate in a hot minute. McSweeneys I'm still not messing with though.

Keep in mind I'm a person that counts his Chicken McNuggets when leaving the table even for a minute.

And I also don't agree with:

"From Britney to Natalie, famous females faced a misogynist lashing that was consistently coded as something else."

Obviously whether the Liz Phair record is good or not is up for debate. I'm taking issue with people whose argument is that it can't be good because of the way it sounds, not with everyone who dislikes it.

How would you dispute the misogyny claim? The Dixie Chicks were targeted--sometimes explicitly, sometimes less so--as *women* who were disloyal to their country. Entire quadrants of the Internet are dedicated to allowing men to establish symbolic control over Britney's body. I'm not concerned with the assault on the stars themselves, but with how what is said about female celebrities reflects a cultural attitude toward women in general. And right now, it's pretty fucking ugly.

Ah, I should probably stay out of this, huh? Especially since I'm tired and need a samwich.

For the Dixie Chicks, they would have gotten a serious amount of fire in the face had they been men and made the same statements. While it is possible that they got more heat simply because they are women, it doesn't seem like unfallible logic either. They were THE name in country music when Natalie made those statements, and the hard fall they took could reasonably seen as a function of how popular they were. It ignores the content of the Natalie's comments to try to focus attention on her gender, and until I see, like, many and obvious examples that the primary reason she got all the shit was because she was a woman, then I find using the Chicks as an example of misogyny a stretch.

Brittney is another story entirely. She is the subject of misogyny but at the same time she throws gas and dynamite on the fire with what can only be seen as a conscious attempt to exploit herself sexually. I mean, I'm not sure if anyone is deserving of misogyny, but it's much harder to feel bad for a porn star on the receiving end of it. My problem isn't as much with your concept as it was your examples;

I think there is something interesting to be said about how the plight of women changed (or didn't) this year in music but I think it was less to do with misogyny and more to do with how the role of women is being self-determined more than ever. Not only your examples, but interesting characters like Karen O or Brody or Cat Power with her pube and boob pictures. (I had it in my mind to pitch something along these lines but never got around to it...heh.)

As for Britney, I don't care about her feelings, or whether she invites abuse, or if she even exists. Misogyny directed at pop stars matters because it's a way of policing all women, of setting up the rules of acceptable gender behavior and reinforcing them.

"Justin is just Rick Astley in a trucker hat. Am I wrong? Please, for the love of God, prove me wrong."

I'm all for "Cry Me a River" but it's no "Never Gonna Give You Up" (which was usurped by "I've Been Thinking About You", but, that's another story).

The point about Britney is that she violates cultural mores in the name of herself, and at least to some extent intends to exploit her sexuality in order to provoke society. She plays the role of aggressor, and misogyny on her level is not indiscrete. Brittney's self-exploitation may bring on some amount of unwarranted misogyny but it also serves to change rules of acceptable gender behavior on her terms and not those of society at large, which on occasion, as she has admitted, she's crossed the line. Why is it okay for her to govern, discern, or create the rules for acceptable gender behavior--in essence, react to culture as an "artist"--and yet if her audience reacts with hatred towards her "art" it's an unfair reclamation of what's acceptable to them? Who made Britney police chief? Many people--women included-- say that Britney is setting up and reinforcing unacceptable rules of behavior, rules that are misogynistic in themselves. Is it okay to hate her for those reasons, or is that still codified as something else in your opinion?

I just don't find the polarizing nature of war commentary or the publicity stunt antics of Britney as credible explanations to the state of women or overally misogyny in the public sphere.

Going back to the Dixie Chicks, the venom aimed at them had nothing to do with them being women, even if some knuckle-draggers were calling them whores. If they'd been blokes they'd be calling them fags who like sucking Saddam's dick.

geh?

It might be, but it might not. But it wouldn't be homophobic "lashing that was consistently coded as something else," it'd be the reverse. Are, say, Lieberman's attacks on Dean hawkish lashing coded as political opportunism?

If only I'd been on hand! (How's tricks?) One funny thing you bring to mind: where are Britney's smartie champions? Her Camille Paglias et al?

(I'm OK. At work, meh. But almost done.)

>I'm more put off by the general "We've listened to everything on the Top 40 and therefore know what's good" atmosphere than any particular oversights. I mean, as a music critic, declaring the year's commercial hits as the year's best isn't exactly earning your pay, IMO.

a marketplace of ideas doesn't imply they all have the same worth.