The Goodbye Girls

I read this board religiously, but a lack of confidence in what I have to say usually keeps me from posting. Sometimes I feel like I'm out of my league, sometimes like I have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Being significantly younger than most of the posters here also contributes.

that's never stopped the young dumb Dudes so don't let it stop you. Post more!

Mel, being younger certainly doesn't shut Ethan's trap up (and that is a good thing, b4 a certain someone gets all offended).

If Maura didn't have that "job" thing, I'm sure she'd post more (ideally, about this male / female schism that cripples most interesting musical discourse).

And did anyone read that "Rock's Back Pages" excerpt @ RockCritics.com about WOMEN IN ROCK and come away a bit, um, unimpressed?

I read this board religiously, but a lack of confidence in what I have to say usually keeps me from posting. Sometimes I feel like I'm out of my league, sometimes like I have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Being significantly younger than most of the posters here also contributes.

I think I'll second that. That's pretty much why I don't post very often either...granted I've only posted probably 5 times total, but I read everyday...

>>And did anyone read that "Rock's Back Pages" excerpt @ RockCritics.com about WOMEN IN ROCK and come away a bit, um, unimpressed? <<

i can't find it dave, can you post a link please?

i don't know why i don't post much to ILM. possibly the same reasons mel gave. plus i figure i'm better at making music than talking about it.

Ah, bugger, I conflated my sources of stuff. It's an excerpt from Paul Gorman's _In Their Own Write: Adventures in the Music Press_. The excerpt is right hereo. If you want to read about Gloria Steinem scaling the Lizard King, click away.

My impression of the Gorman book's take on uh 'women in rock' is that it was limited to Caroline Coon talking about how everywhere she ever worked was sexist (entirely credible btw but their coverage of women journalists was pretty limited).

I can only speak as a zine editor rather than a moderator, and I am really really keen for more women to contribute more to FT. Not out of some quota system but because people like Maura and Sarah Clarke are some of the most intelligent, fresh and fun people I know talking about music and I'm dead proud to have them contributing.

As for Mel - Blimey! Every time you IM me saying "I have a music question" or something it's *me* who feels intimidated. You've got a 7 year head start on pretty much everyone else your age, and honestly it's up to you how you use it. But if you fancied contributing to FT I would be very pleased!

Yeah, Mel, you rool. All those albums on your list for this year that I hadn't heard of which sounded great! I was very impressed and more than a little jealous. Well, a lot jealous. TOTALLY jealous! *stomps off into corner and cries*

Geez, Mel, you made Ned flounce! For shame, madam. ;)

After reading my post, I don't think that I answered the question very well. Perhaps I am intimidated in some ways, and I sometimes I do feel that I don't have enough knowledge/perspective to give very enlightening posts. But, I don't really think that has much to do with me being a girl. I'm sure there are boys that feel the same way...

I guess maybe boys are more prone to becoming REALLY and TRULY obsessed with something...and with that obsession comes the inevitable "I must know everything there is to know about this band, and then I must tell everyone about it" whereas perhaps I feel "obsessed" and I want to know more, but for some reason I don't feel the same need to tell everyone about it...I guess that could be a personal thing too though, as I sometimes think I'm rather inept at explaining my likes and dislikes about music...

I guess maybe boys are more prone to becoming REALLY and TRULY obsessed with something...and with that obsession comes the inevitable "I must know everything there is to know about this band, and then I must tell everyone about it"
Indeed, that seems very male to me. That true mannish desire to conquer, master and brag. Oh yeah, and mine's bigger than yours!

Germaine Greer claims in her book that women don't listen to music. Although I realize that on the whole men tend to obsess over it more than women, I don't apply to her rule. I am a woman and I do obsess over music. Why don't I post much? Not so much lack of confidence - I make mistakes but that wouldn't stop me from spewing out my opinion on this board. My thoughts are as valuable as anyone else's, in my opinion. I think it has more to do with the fact that I take everything (including what I think/say) into question. I rarely agree with anything that's written/typed. And I don't want to project this image of being contrary all the time.
Of course internet is already predominantly male.

Globally it's about 53-54% male. In the US the majority of people with internet connections are female.

Originally FT (and hence originally ILM) was meant to be a place which would celebrate the individual experience of music rather than play host to knowledge-displays. I don't know much about music, after all. It would be nice - I think - if the site and the boards could be more 'feminized' in that way.

"and with that obsession comes the inevitable "I must know everything there is to know about this band, and then I must tell everyone about it" whereas perhaps I feel "obsessed" and I want to know more, but for some reason I don't feel the same need to tell everyone about it...

hahaha... if you knew emily in person, you'd be laughing yourself right now... she is the MOST outspoken person about music I've ever met, specially after a few. It's a girl thing.

OOPS! WRONG EMILY!

I am very sorry

Melissa, you're much younger than me and you probably know 10 times as much about music -- you shouldn't feel intimidated at all.

I post here once in awhile, but I really don't want to get into the reasons why it's not really enjoyable as ILE. It'll just lead to fites, and I really don't care about this enough to want to argue.

I really don't want to get into the reasons why it's not really enjoyable as ILE.

it's drier, more academic, less-irreverent, no threads about bras or sammiches. i don't get as much enjoyment out of ilm as ile. then again, i also hardly post on ilm because i = afeared of the intellectualism of many of the male posters.

(i'm a girly man, obv.)

I find ILE equally intimidating.

Oh, it's all goofs and dumb yoofs. I'm sure people would love for you to post more, it would probably classy up the joint.

Dumb question but... What's ILE and where is it?

Never mind -- I found it...

I agree with what people have said thus far, but I have yet to even try posting on ILE because the fact that I'm Canadian makes it difficult to catch a good number of references. That's a bit of a problem on ILM, but not to the same extreme.

Jess:

Are you the same person who started the "Zeitgeist" thread? Coulda fooled me...

busted!

This board goes through its good and bad phases for me. I stopped posting for a while because...well, there were too many posters posting with an impersonal tone. By impersonal, I don't mean 'lacking personal revelation', I just mean a reluctance (or inability?) to convey personality. I don't find that impersonal quality as much on the board right now. It's not a music geek thing with me. I believe it was Fritz who tipped me off to the fact that the board was getting better again. Personally, I like that there are lots of young people on the boards, because younger people tend to be more enthusiastic and, you know...

Germaine Greer claims in her book that women don't listen to music.

Really? Can you elaborate on that one?

I, personally, post to ILM more than to ILE because the thing that interests me about this place is the discussion of ideas and the attempt to gain understanding, whereas ILE seems more openly interested in being a "virtual community" -- something that, to be frank, doesn't interest me at all, though that's not to say I'm not interested in one-on-one contacts with particular people. I have a finite amount of time and energy each day, and (knowing that places like this can suck up hours and hours of one's time, and knowing that I tend to spend far too long over just about everything I write as it is) I want to give my emotional/personal resources to my friends and loved ones -- I'm not giving them enough as it is, and have emails in my inbox dating back to August 2000. I guess it might be different if I knew some of the people here off-line; I guess you could say I'm mainly here to learn (and, when it seems constructive, to argue on behalf of the ideas I believe in, both to advocate for them and to refine them in discussion), and not really to socialize.

Tom, I'm a bit troubled by your post, and what I see as a false dichotomy in it, e.g. individual experience vs. "knowledge-displays". (Also an unbalanced/straw-man dichotomy, in that you talk about half of that equation pejoratively, but I know that's intentional.) What about, y'know, "trying to understand"? That was the definition of analysis I offered earlier, and that's why I come here. (I'm also not thrilled by the notion that "feminizing" somehow equates to being less interested in knowledge and/or focusing on the self -- don't you think that sells a lot of women kinda short? I know I'm exaggerating your point a bit, but...)

learning vs socialising = anuvver false dichotomy

Point taken, but y.k.w.i.m.

By the way, how's MacLynx working out for you, if at all?

oh you just reminded me! i ran out the erm instructions at work today, before boozy office party (hence forgetting). currently it tells me i can't access remote hosts, but i assume i just have to configure it properly, and haven't yet

i'm offline from tomorrow for a week so i shall read it all up

i do know what you mean, but i think your distinction is more seriously flawed than tom's

I find ILE equally intimidating

I agree, Mel--I think I find it more so, actually. I feel like I post just enough so people might recognize my name but not nearly enough for people to consider me a real ILM-er. I do read the boards quite often, but I am usually so friggin' busy that I can't find much time to post anything that I'm very happy with. It's not so much that I feel intimidated (though sometimes I do), but I don't always feel like I have something new or interesting to add.

Regarding what Kerry said, I feel like I come across sort of personality-less on ILM, and that bothers me. I don't know, sometimes I think I should either post all the time and keep a high profile or just stop posting altogether. I'm a very gregarious and extroverted person in "real-life," so being in a situation where I feel like I know you guys (at least to some extent) but you don't really know me is frustrating. Still, ILM is a really special thing, and I'm so glad it exists.

Scare quotes around 'feminizing' were intended to show that I wasnt totally happy with the idea of individual experience being associated with a 'feminine' way of listening to music. I should have made that clearer - I was replying to Helen, kind of saying, well *if* that is the case then this is what we've been trying to reverse all along.

Yes the dichotomy is a flawed one - of course knowledge-displays are important but there are sites and sites and mags and mags and books and books which basically take the readers through the musical experience from the point of view of the musician, or talk about musical history in a way that is centred on the musician and recorded output (NB Freaky Trigger has been guilty of obsessive focus on recorded output too, yes).

As a site editor with limited time and other interests I'm aware that FT can't be all things to all people: the focus on an individual's experience and use of music is an editorial line and one I intend to stick to. Of course if the individual is a committed fan or musicologist or indeed musician then knowledge-displays will surely come into it - (and almost everyone writing for the site falls into one or other of these categories!) - but one basic idea of the site remains how its writers and other people use and relate to music in an everyday context, rather than taking records or songs as discrete, contextless objects for evaluation. A lot of places, after all, do that kind of thing more comprehensively and better than we could ever hope to.

How much ILM reflects that I don't know - it explains some of the forum's flavour, but there are no guidelines here really and I like it like that.

I am another fan of Melissa's lists, always bang up to date with picking up the latest electronic releases, e.g ulrich schnauss

I would be most interested in reading a Melissa's Top 50 albums of 2001 article on FT in early January 2002 with a paragraph commenting on each album.

Melissa's 2001 albums list is definately one of the most interesting and individualistic I have seen so far this year !

Tom, do you see a synthesis of those two things -- rather than pursuing one or the other -- as being at cross-purposes with your editorial line for FT? (This is a sincere question, btw.)

Hello, I'm supposedly the 'right' Emily that Steve was talking about, and it is true, that I talk a lot of shite very vehemently about music, but I don't so much on this board. It's not so much because it's male dominated- in fact, not at all, I don't know anything about GURLS and I'm more of an anal freak than any of you poncey boys who care about jobs and relationships and computers and sport and, um, anything that isn't music. It does have something to do with the fact that the weight of knowledge of the entire IL* is so vast it is intimidating, but at the moment it has more to do with the fact that I have loads of work.

Oh, did I mention I'm drunk? Ergo, this post = nonsensensical, most likely...

I don't post a ton because am currently doing grad school applications when not at work & work 40-45 hours a week, so I haven't got the time; unfortunately am too busy AT the job to be on ILM.
Plus.. I find many discussions get way too complicated. I'm not ashamed to say that as I don't have any worries about not comprehending a person's argument when it gets hyper-theoretical. It's just that as a part-time critical theory wonk (no expert, but have def. stances staked out) I am less and less enamored with forced quasi-hegelian dialectics seeking to contextualize, and a lot of the ILM dialogues seem to do that. Maybe these days I'm more on a deleuzo- guattarian trip, not least because I think there's more enjoyment in what they do. But a lot of times I want to respond to lengthy logical discussions on music with a yes, no, both and neither! Then I feel like when I do post 'em I've cut myself out of a clear back- and-forth & thus nobody replies.
I don't know why most of the music theorizers I know are guys, I have a pet theory involving emotional repression & socially acceptable collector-geek syndrome, but if I investigated it out to any logical end it'd probably collide smack into feminism & leave me reeling.

Phil - no, not at all - for practical reasons as much as anything else, i.e. casting pieces in a review format, or using an individual record as their anchor, tends to provide a useful focus.

OK, I'm a female music obsessive. Jazz is my main turn-on but I love rap, pop or electronica or rock when the mood hits me. I've got some great listening ideas from lurking at ILM. So why have I never 'til now felt like throwing in my $0.02?

Partly coz women who are interested in music are not using it to impress. I love Sonny Dallas because he's a genius, not because he's less obvious than Ron Carter or Scotty LaFaro. Too much of the music I love would not pass the ILM cool test. (The Beatles are my favourite pop band fer chrissakes - why suffer the put-downs?)

Also, what is it with male music obsessives who figure that all girls who like music are going to fancy them, if only they can bombard us with enough muso arcana and pseudo-intellectual theorising? I have had boyfriends who were musicians, and a shared interest sure doesn't hurt, but, believe me, an encyclopedic knowledge of music trivia is not normally what floats my sexual boat. Too often what I thought was a nice chat to an apparently nice guy about fave albums has become a social nightmare when I've had to correct some kind of "wrong impression". I bet other women at ILM know whereof I speak. OK no-one at ILM is going to start touching my arm because I like "Paid in Full" or "Point of Departure" but women with musical interests do get subjected to a kind of aversion therapy as far as the male music obsessive is concerned.

Partly coz women who are interested in music are not using it to impress.

Based on some female DJs during my college radio years, I'd have to differ.

Why is it OK for women to make negative generalizations about men, but when a man does the same he's usually looked at as a sexist/chauvinist?

(The above isn't really a response to anyone's post, btw.)

To avoid hijacking the thread, I've moved my tangent here.

The male music obsessive who truly believes music knowledge is going to attract females is in for a life of crushing disappointment.

I've been impressed by a boy's musical knowledge before!

It's the other aspects of their character that lets the side down...

What this is really meant to say anyway is that you shouldn't let your personal experience speak for everyone's. Chiz chiz.

Why is it OK for women to make negative generalizations about men, but when a man does the same he's usually looked at as a sexist/chauvinist?
Who says it is okay?

Naomi: JEEZ, have you seen the amount of attention that women with cool tastes get around these parts? Not to dis Mel, but if a dude had put that list up, there wouldn't have been nearly as much fanfare. And certainly not the "be my wife" tone of some of the responses (not that those weren't funny to read). Oh, I think it's much easier for girls to use musical knowledge to pull guys--read what Ned said above. Most guys really aren't trying to impress women with their knowledge, not on this forum at least. I've seen it on scenes before, for sure: "Yeah, I like the White Stripes? They rock?" Also, there's that subconscious "maybe if I make you a mix tape and reveal my broad but down-to-earth tastes and likeable complexity you'll want to knock boots" impulse that we're all familiar with. But for the most part, women who are into cool stuff definitely get noticed.

maybe thats because it surprises some men that women aren't dumb.

That complaint only functions properly if we assume musical knowledge to be an indicator of intelligence. Which is isn't. So. The obvious thing is that men and women are socialized toward different interests (and different levels of trivia accumulation): intelligence aside, you're unlikely to find a twelve year old boy with an obsessive interest in ponies. The questions here are (a) why critical discourse about music has traditionally been so much of a boys club, (b) whether that tradition discourages women from engaging with it and adding their perspectives, (c) whether that's the case here on ILM, and (d) if so, what we can do to correct that.

And clearly we focus on Melissa because she always pops up and offers these modest little tidbits that still reveal loads of insight, loads of background, and loads of really great things to say.

Oh, and I don't think we should be particularly surprised by the masculine tendency to collect knowledge and use it competitively -- it fits perfectly with the traditional, deplorable gender contract around the world. Men are pointed toward the competitive, toward the accumulation of skills and knowledge to be used to achieve concrete things more efficiently than others can; women are pointed toward the social and the interpersonal, which in ridigly family-oriented cultures can be almost as powerful a role.

I do have a not-strongly-held theory on boys and technical obsessions, which I think has something to do with adolescent socialization. Young women are pointed toward the social, toward the peer group, so that their hopes and energies are directed more outward ... while something about the masculine role involves rejecting outright attempts toward peer acceptance in favor of self-sufficiency. (Another way of putting this is that a 13-year-old boy is pretty well discouraged from saying something like "I don't have any friends," or "Cute girls don't like me" -- this is taken as weak, pathetic, or anyway un-masculine -- while a 13-year-old girl making the same complaints would likely be given encouragement and support.) The result seems to be a lot of teenaged boys holed up in bedrooms pouring their attention into some activity that offers an opportunity to develop skills -- and, more importantly, the chance for those skills to be precisely the thing that raises the boy's social status. I.e., the message to women is "go be more likeable" (and by "likeable," I mean "pretty," too) -- the message to men is "go be better than other men at something, and this will make you likeable." It's a marriage contract again: the powerful man and his charming wife.

One of many downsides to this is an unfortunate larger message that women ought not to bother with anything but being socially acceptable to others, as they lack the capabilities or emotional fortitude to actually accomplish anything. Same goes for knowing about music, in which men are called upon to compete and defend their opinions, whereas women are more likely to get a patronizing "Whatever makes you happy." (This in action: how often do you see someone lay into a woman for liking a particular record?)

The solution to all of this, in music-discourse terms and in general discourse terms: make the discourse itself seem less competitive. I think a lot of women find a lot of semi-argumentative discourse unappealing because they have been told to work toward agreement, whereas men have been taught to work toward disagreement and then victory.

Oh, and please note that I am largely talking out of my ass, above, and don't mean to sound so essentialist about it, nor to imply that it's anywhere near so cut and dry in practice. But I do think that we are socialized to derive different pleasures from different sorts of things, and even if cast off a lot of that socialization, a lot of it is bound to linger.

I agree w/some of what you're saying, tho I do think these gender- based roles/expectations are not so strict as they once may have been.. Which all in all I certainly think it's for the better, I know within feminism & for a lot of feminist friends of mine, there's more pressure to be all things to all people: socially charming, outspoken, technically adept, and yes, pretty.
What I do think about moreso these days is how much of the being-charming thing is a *game* one can turn on and turn off as one chooses, because sometimes it is useful and appropriate. But it doesn't necessarily follow that one really stresses that much over whether or not people find one socially acceptable. And one doesn't necessarily become powerful w/nothing but techie ability & a fierce competitive streak.

As far as making ILM discourse less competitive.. eh, I don't mind being told I have wretched taste, I've just never understood why arguing about music needs to end in victory. I suppose being willing to spend copious amounts of time carrying on about it, despite KNOWING already what your own tastes are, would be a trait more guys have been socialized to possess. Personally, I tend to appreciate reading & writing the more idiosyncratic ideas about a particular artist.. also ridiculous statements that make no sense & sound like the liner notes/lyrics to any given Fall album, those are OK too.

One thing that's really strange about ILM dialogues, to me is obsessive list-making & list comparison. What's the point? My top-17 list of the best indie No Wave b-sides made by bands with female bass players is better than yours.

Something else re: rock-canon-formation & litmus tests of cool: maybe guys ARE more likely, at least they have been in my experience!, to fiercely guard the particular body of knowledge they've accumulated as a complete, untouchable entity in itself. You hear folks dropping in & talking straightaway about ILM tastes, since they've already become defined. I talked to a rock critic once, some editor at the old Addicted to Noise, & his remarks were of the pronouncing-from-on-high variety: "Ah, excellent taste." So maybe there's the problem w/a socialized techie-skill-building mindset when it gets transferred to matters of aesthetics: he has worked so hard to properly develop appreciation for this canon & followed all the rules to the letter! It's a very serious business, his entire being can get wrapped up in protecting it, and I'm just standing there rolling my eyes in total bitchery & abomination.

My memory's failing for the moment: what's the Aristotelian distinction, techne and ____ ?