Feminist Pop

DarkJager

Acacia wrote: »

Explain how it's tongue-in-cheek though. I don't have a problem with the song really ( I kind of like it actually!), I just gave it as an example of a ''possibly'' sexist rap song. Just the word 'ho's' even is fairly derogatory, you would agree?

I wouldn't agree its a derogatory term unless the person who takes offence to it is actually a prostitute (which is what the word ho's refers to, not women in general as is commonly mistaken).

So, what, it's only offensive if it's over-played? Cop-out, my friend. Sure, it's annoying to hear a song, any song, over and over again, but if it's offensive, then that's it, doesn't matter how many times you hear it.

You have a good point there but...I don't think its just the over playing of the song thats offensive, its the fact thats it a "one rule for them and another for us" situation. Its just accepted and thats the real downer about it. I decided to listen to the Beyonce song again (well din't have a choice really ) and the more I hear it the angrier I get. Its so condescending on so many levels.. I don't care what she is trying to get across, the song is a patethic "girls know best" whinge. I actually cannot describe in words how much I actually hate even the existance of this song...

Of course, singing about break-ups, and how crummy men ( and women) are is a stale cliche, but it is the staple subject of the typical pop song, and has been since the dawn of popular music. What do you suggest women should sing about so?

There are thousands of subjects to write about, and it wouldn't hurt them to say at least something meaningful in their songs at some stage. I'm not saying every song has to be really deep, its just that songs don't need to be so superficial either. Its creating this mindset in young girls that "we're better than men on every level, they're only puppets for us" and thats what pisses me off the most. Call it "girl power" or whatever you want, I see it as cheap sexism that is woefully misguided... I wouldn't go within 10 feet of any woman with such a mindset because they really should just grow the **** up.

RE emo- so when women complain about men treating them badly, it's condescending bull****, but when an emo band, for example, does then it's self-pity?

From the emo bands I've heard, there is nothing there in the lyrics to suggest things like "I'm better than women". Emo is short for emotional, and most of the songs seem to lament on lost loves, rather than slating them and belittling an entire gender, which these female pop "artists" seem to excel at.

I would agree that it's mainly young girls who buy the music, because of the message it sends out- i.e. ''Listen to us, we're hot, men like us!". In any case, the emphasis is on the commodification of women's sexuality- which is not exactly a feminist ideal.

Again, its not the right image to portray to that market regardless of what feminist ideals it does or does not fall under. Beauty isn't everything, but these songs are imprinting this exact superficial stereotype into the female psyche - that men are just shallow and obsessed with women. Thats why so many women are walking around like their **** doesn't stink or as I like to call it "the beyonce complex". And women wonder why they end up alone?

Fair enough, you think it's a 'level of feminism'. I think it's a clever marketing gimmick- making women think they're empowered by listening to 'girl power lyrics', delivered by a scantily-clad chick. If you really think this is some sort of feminism, you need to brush up on your Simone De Beauvoir Feminism is not a about hating men, it's about equality.

I have no time for feminsim or chauvinism in any shape or form or for the people who subscribe to the mindset of either. Regardless of how you see one or the other, they are both futile exercises in oneupmanship. Which is exactly what these pop songs are doing, therefore they are at a base level at least, a part of feminism.

jill_valentine

No, they're not. They're not related to feminism at all. These girls are falling apart because their guy has dumped them or whatever, and as such, they're entirely dependant and reliant on their boyfriends for their identity. They're conditioning girls to aspire to that same mindset. That is in no way feminist, not even by your definition.

dr.bollocko

Kold wrote: »

If I had a hammer, I'd smash patriarchy.

patriarchy in the morning,
patriarchy in the evening.
All over this land.

'Ere. I can get on board that the songs are ****e. Surprised nobody mentioned Avril Lavigne. Very hard to respect someone who made a big deal about how she is not in need of a gentleman's touch early on in the career, but then when the record sales nosedive suddenly its cheerleader outfit and bring on the boys.

Acacia

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't agree its a derogatory term unless the person who takes offence to it is actually a prostitute (which is what the word ho's refers to, not women in general as is commonly mistaken)

So if somebody referred to your mother, sister or girlfriend as a 'ho' you wouldn't care because it's only offensive to prostitutes?

And how exactly is the song tongue-in-cheek, by the way?

DarkJager wrote: »

You have a good point there but...I don't think its just the over playing of the song thats offensive, its the fact thats it a "one rule for them and another for us" situation. Its just accepted and thats the real downer about it. I decided to listen to the Beyonce song again (well din't have a choice really ) and the more I hear it the angrier I get. Its so condescending on so many levels.. I don't care what she is trying to get across, the song is a patethic "girls know best" whinge. I actually cannot describe in words how much I actually hate even the existance of this song...

Right, so we're now discounting the 'over-played' argument. Therefore, the Ludacris song could possibly be viewed as as sexist and offensive as the Beyoncé song?
I don't really see what's so offensive about the Beyoncé song- she's saying if she was a boy she would treat her girlfriend well because she would understand women because she's a woman herself ( okay, it's not award-winning song writing) but I don't see how it's anti-men really. If a guy wrote a song from a man's point of view i.e. 'If I Was a Girl' I don't think it would be particularly offensive either.

DarkJager wrote: »

There are thousands of subjects to write about, and it wouldn't hurt them to say at least something meaningful in their songs at some stage. I'm not saying every song has to be really deep, its just that songs don't need to be so superficial either. Its creating this mindset in young girls that "we're better than men on every level, they're only puppets for us" and thats what pisses me off the most. Call it "girl power" or whatever you want, I see it as cheap sexism that is woefully misguided... I wouldn't go within 10 feet of any woman with such a mindset because they really should just grow the **** up.

I actually agree with this point. And this is why I don't listen to pop music much myself, because most of the songs are shallow and superficial. However, like I said before, most 'radio hits' are written on the subject of love and heart break .

I would say it's actually creating a mindset in young girls that ''we need to look and act a certain way or men won't find us attractive''. If anybody is being treated like puppets it's eejits like the Pussycat Dolls , dancing like strippers for money.

It is cheap sexism- but I would say the sexism is largely directed at the female audience! :pac:

DarkJager wrote: »

From the emo bands I've heard, there is nothing there in the lyrics to suggest things like "I'm better than women". Emo is short for emotional, and most of the songs seem to lament on lost loves, rather than slating them and belittling an entire gender, which these female pop "artists" seem to excel at.

But surely most female artists' songs don't belittle an entire gender either? If they're talking about breaking-up with somebody they're going to sound angry or sad at that person, though. Just because they're saying one man treated them badly, it doesn't mean they're saying all men are b@stards.

DarkJager wrote: »

Again, its not the right image to portray to that market regardless of what feminist ideals it does or does not fall under. Beauty isn't everything, but these songs are imprinting this exact superficial stereotype into the female psyche - that men are just shallow and obsessed with women. Thats why so many women are walking around like their **** doesn't stink or as I like to call it "the beyonce complex". And women wonder why they end up alone?

I would also agree with this with some minor contentions. Firstly, the thing is is that it falls under no classification of feminism whatsoever. Feminism is not promoting a woman's sexuality as a commodity- that is the furthest thing from feminism!

I'd actually venture that because of the shallow stereotype that some of these songs promote-that men are shallow and obsessed with women's looks- that along with the 'beyoncé complex' women, there are several teenage girls growing up with the dangerous idea that men only like women for their looks / sluttiness.

DarkJager wrote: »

I have no time for feminsim or chauvinism in any shape or form or for the people who subscribe to the mindset of either. Regardless of how you see one or the other, they are both futile exercises in oneupmanship. Which is exactly what these pop songs are doing, therefore they are at a base level at least, a part of feminism.

Again, the songs of Beyoncé, Katy Perry or the Pussycat Dolls are in no way , shape or form embracing or are a part of feminism. Not being a smart-arse, but if you really want to understand what feminism actually is read the works of Simone De Beauvoir. Feminism has been made a dirty word in the media (largely due to the ''Let's call man-holes 'people-holes' " brigade). These songs are not feminist.

,8,1

A lot of the so-called 'feminist pop' is actually designed for men's consumption.

Wouldn't that be a contradiction in terms then? "Feminist pop meant for men's consumption"? Newsflash: feminism and things deemed to be feminist cater to female wants and desires. If it happens to bring some advantages to men in society, fine, but that's not what it's designed for.

The term is quite accurate though and I do hope it is propagated more into the mainstream.

Take the Pussycat Doll's 'I Don't Need a Man'- best example of pure hypocrisy.

Twisted logic.

Again, the songs of Beyoncé, Katy Perry or the Pussycat Dolls are in no way , shape or form embracing or are a part of feminism.

Until we consider the practical reality that sexual liberalism is inherently feminist, and since the "music" of the Pussycat Dolls is lyrically and graphically sexually liberal...

Not being a smart-arse, but if you really want to understand what feminism actually is read the works of Simone De Beauvoir.

Oh puleez. De Beauvoir and other stables of feminist philosophy argue for the liberation and deconstruction of all sexual boundaries which results in yep you guessed it, the likes of the Pussycat Dolls. It's a simple case of theory and practice.

De Beauvoir and various other Marxist-Feminist writers of the 1950s are the theory. 21st Century Western culture (encompassing its popular music) is the practice. The two slot into place pretty consistently actually. You can take an overview of one or the other: both end up in approximately the same place.

If I had a hammer, I'd smash patriarchy.

No need, love. We live in a Matriarchal society.

Acacia

,8,1 wrote: »

Wouldn't that be a contradiction in terms then? "Feminist pop meant for men's consumption"? Newsflash: feminism and things deemed to be feminist cater to female wants and desires. If it happens to bring some advantages to men in society, fine, but that's not what it's designed for.

The term is quite accurate though and I do hope it is propagated more into the mainstream.



Twisted logic.



Until we consider the practical reality that sexual liberalism is inherently feminist, and since the "music" of the Pussycat Dolls is lyrically and graphically sexually liberal...



Oh puleez. De Beauvoir and other stables of feminist philosophy argue for the liberation and deconstruction of all sexual boundaries which results in yep you guessed it, the likes of the Pussycat Dolls. It's a simple case of theory and practice.

De Beauvoir and various other Marxist-Feminist writers of the 1950s are the theory. 21st Century Western culture (encompassing its popular music) is the practice. The two slot into place pretty consistently actually. You can take an overview of one or the other: both end up in approximately the same place.



No need, love. We live in a Matriarchal society.

1. Not really, considering the OP doesn't seem to know what feminism is. He or she demonstrated this by claiming that a 'fake-lesbian' song by Katy Perry was in some way feminist. It's not feminist pop, but I would argue that yes, it is for men's consumption ( or to be more accurate, titillation).

2. What reality is this that 'sexual liberalism' is inherently feminist?

The Pussycat Dolls are using their bodies to sell their music- what is so liberating about that? With the Dolls there is no eradication of sexual boundaries ( in fact, the boundaries between men and women, their desires, etc) seem to be firmly re-enforced. So how they are somehow a result of the theory of Marxist-Feminists, I fail to see. Seems like a simple case of 'sex sells' to me.

I recommended De Beauvoir to the OP as he doesn't seem to actually know what feminism is, by the way.

3. Feminism is about equality for both men and women (I do know men who would describe themselves as feminists). As for 'matriarchal society'- please expand further, I really don't see it. Last time I checked, there were still tits on page 3 of The Sun and women are still earning less then men.

,8,1

1. Not really, considering the OP doesn't seem to know what feminism is. He or she demonstrated this by claiming that a 'fake-lesbian' song by Katy Perry was in some way feminist. It's not feminist pop, but I would argue that yes, it is for men's consumption ( or to be more accurate, titillation).

It is feminist on a number of different levels. Promotes lesbianism, sexual liberalism, promotes meme of separatism from men, undermines traditional morality, undermines traditional nuclear family and precursors thereof. You can't be seriously feminist if you don't do some or all of these things.

"Fake-lesbian song" is pretty inaccurate description of it, IMO. First of all it contains lesbian messages and secondly how do you know wheter Ms. Perry is lesbian or not.

2. What reality is this that 'sexual liberalism' is inherently feminist?

Read Simone de Beauvoir some time. Or practically any other feminist writer, classic or current.

The Pussycat Dolls are using their bodies to sell their music- what is so liberating about that?

Does the feminist meme "my body, my choice" ring a bell?

,8,1

3. Feminism is about equality for both men and women (I do know men who would describe themselves as feminists).

At best that is idealistic. At worst (i.e. in reality) that's just deceptive marketing. The "Feminism = Equality" product does not do what it says on the tin!

Lots of men are feminists, so what? They're emasculated wimps in my opinion, but such are the constraints the sexual sphere that men have to tolerate the insanity of feminism. The existence of "male feminists" does not disprove the fact that feminism is a movement which advocates Matriarchal (i.e. gynocentric, non-sex-equal) society.

As for 'matriarchal society'- please expand further, I really don't see it.

Law, culture, social trends, media, etc.

Last time I checked, there were still tits on page 3 of The Sun

So? Matriarchal society is sexually liberal/anarchist as I said. Both pornography and prostitution prosper in myriad forms in Matriarchy.

and women are still earning less then men.

Not women in their 20s and in major urban centres, no. Also women are the majority buyers of property in most Western countries today.

Acacia

,8,1 wrote: »

It is feminist on a number of different levels. Promotes lesbianism, sexual liberalism, promotes meme of separatism from men, undermines traditional morality, undermines traditional nuclear family and precursors thereof. You can't be seriously feminist if you don't do some or all of these things.

"Fake-lesbian song" is pretty inaccurate description of it, IMO. First of all it contains lesbian messages and secondly how do you know wheter Ms. Perry is lesbian or not.



Read Simone de Beauvoir some time. Or practically any other feminist writer, classic or current.



Does the feminist meme "my body, my choice" ring a bell?

1. If she actually was a lesbian, your first point would be relevant. However, she wakes up with her boyfriend at the end of the video. Seems to me like it was a bit of attention-seeking for men to get excited over, tbh. Just like TaTu. She is dating the lead singer of Gym Class Heroes- Travis McCoy- a bloke, fyi. Not a lesbian.

2. I have read De Beauvoir actually. I just think she you should qualify what you mean by sexual liberalism and how it and feminism are mutually exclusive.

3. I believe the 'my body, my choice' thing is an pro-abortion slogan. Sure, nobody is physically forcing the Pussycat Dolls to dress/dance the way they do but I believe they are the product of a society which tells women that their most valued asset is their sexuality. But I guess you won't agree since you think we live in a 'matriarchal society'.

Acacia

,8,1 wrote: »

At best that is idealistic. At worst (i.e. in reality) that's just deceptive marketing. The "Feminism = Equality" product does not do what it says on the tin!

Lots of men are feminists, so what? They're emasculated wimps in my opinion, but such are the constraints the sexual sphere that men have to tolerate the insanity of feminism. The existence of "male feminists" exist does not disprove the fact that feminism is a movement which advocates Matriarchal (i.e. gynocentric, non-sex-equal) society.



Law, culture, social trends, media, etc.



So? Matriarchal society is sexually liberal/anarchist as I said. Both pornography and prostitution prosper in myriad forms in Matriarchy.



Not women in their 20s and in major urban centres, no. Also women are the majority buyers of property in most Western countries today.

1. Feminism is about equality for men and women. I wouldn't subscribe to any type of feminism that sought to put down men.

2. The culture and social trends which I have mentioned (page 3, porn) etc, would indicate that this is not a matriarchal society.

3. Pornography and prostitution were in existence before this so-called 'matriarchal society'. They exist for men's gratification, to pretend otherwise is a joke, tbh.

4. Nope, the glass ceiling still exists.

To be honest, we're dragging this thread way off topic. The fact that you referred to male feminists as 'emasculated wimps' says it all really.

,8,1

I believe the 'my body, my choice' thing is an pro-abortion slogan.

I think it has been dispatched in a broader sense.

However, she wakes up with her boyfriend at the end of the video.

How does this mean she is not lesbian. She could be bisexual, which is basically "lesbianism + heterosexuality" at the same time. Nevertheless it would mean she is in part lesbian.

Sure, nobody is physically forcing the Pussycat Dolls to dress/dance the way they do but I believe they are the product of a society which tells women that their most valued asset is their sexuality.

Maybe it is? Perhaps the whole point of feminism is to make a females' sexuality her exclusive asset, with which she can decide to do what she wants. Pre-feminism a woman's sexuality wasn't exclusively hers it was her husband's, society's so feminists argue. That yucky sexual moral code was holding it down. Now that the barriers have been taken down, are you trying to say that you don't like what you see?

Sure, nobody is physically forcing the Pussycat Dolls to dress/dance the way they do

Quite the opposite in fact they are doing it of their own free will. Perhaps the desire to dress, act and talk as they do comes from their own inner desires, not "society" as you attest?

But I guess you won't agree since you think we live in a 'matriarchal society'.

Well I know we do. I also realise that the whole feminist movement hinges on deferring admission that we live in such a society for as long as possible.

,8,1

Pornography and prostitution were in existence before this so-called 'matriarchal society'. They exist for men's gratification, to pretend otherwise is a joke, tbh.

Oh. You completely discount the idea that they are an outlet for female sexual expression?

Nope, the glass ceiling still exists.

Ah lack of evidence. How quintesstially feminist!

To be honest, we're dragging this thread way off topic.

Perhaps you're right, but these questions are still central to whether Katy Perry, Pussycat Dolls et al are "feminist pop" or not.

Acacia

,8,1 wrote: »

How does this mean she is not lesbian. She could be bisexual, which is basically "lesbianism + heterosexuality" at the same time. Nevertheless it would mean she is in part lesbian.

It means she is not lesbian because she is straight. She could possibly be bi-sexual , I guess, but she seems at pains to emphasize both in the song and the video that she has a boyfriend, she is kissing girls behind his back and she hopes he ''won't mind it''. So it seems to me that the suggestion is that it's a bit of attention-seeking titillation.

How well do you think a song by straight/possibly bi-sexual man called 'I Kissed A Boy' would go down, in fairness? Not very well, in my opinion.

,8,1 wrote: »

Maybe it is? Perhaps the whole point of feminism is to make a females' sexuality her exclusive asset, with which she can decide to do what she wants. Pre-feminism a woman's sexuality wasn't exclusively hers it was her husband's, society's so feminists argue. That yucky sexual moral code was holding it down. Now that the barriers have been taken down, are you trying to say that you don't like what you see?

Yup, pretty much. The point of pornography is that a woman is selling her sexuality- so from when she is being filmed having sex or being photographed naked , her sexuality doesn't belong to her but to whoever pays for it.

Of course, some feminists would say ''it's my body, my choice'', and while I can see where they're coming from, I don't agree that being a stripper or porn star is liberating.

,8,1 wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact they are doing it of their own free will. Perhaps the desire to dress, act and talk as they do comes from their own inner desires, not "society" as you attest?

AFAIK, the Pussycat Dolls were members of a burlesque troupe before making their unfortunate foray into popular music. So, I think they went down this road in order to make a quick buck, to be honest, rather than any deep and meaningful idea of liberation. And where would they get the idea that the easiest way to make money if you're a good looking woman is to take your clothes off? Society, and it's obsession with appearance/ sex. In any case, this type of thinking is all over the place, if it were just the case of one band doing it then I might agree that it's down to their own inner desires. But it's a whole cultural phenomenon ( page 3, etc). So I find that very hard to believe.

,8,1 wrote: »

Well I know we do. I also realise that the whole feminist movement hinges on deferring admission that we live in such a society for as long as possible.

You seem very sure that this 'matriarchal society' exists but you haven't given a lot of proof other than a very general answer ( 'law, media, culture'). Do you feel that men are being victimized now? Genuine question.

,8,1 wrote: »

Oh. You completely discount the idea that they are an outlet for female sexual expression?

This is an interesting point. I've no doubt of the potential for pornography as an outlet for female sexual expression, but it simply isn't utilized as such.
Most porn , in the mainstream, is directed at men for their enjoyment/pleasure, etc. I actually think there is no problem with that, but it doesn't work both ways. Why are there boobs on page three and no halk-naked men on page 4, for example? Why is any porn with men as the sexual object marketed as 'gay porn'- as in, porn for men, and not straight women?

,8,1 wrote: »

Ah lack of evidence. How quintesstially feminist!

Let's take the U.S. election , for example, so. Hilary Clinton fails to become the Democrat candidate, and McCain choose Sarah Palin as potential Vice-President. This is seen largely as attempt to gain the female voters that would have previously voted for Clinton.

A number of things wrong here- assuming that most females will vote for Clinton, simply because she is a woman, and secondly, the the same women will vote for Palin, simply because she is a woman, never mind that she is part of a totally different political party.

,8,1 wrote: »

Perhaps you're right, but these questions are still central to whether Katy Perry, Pussycat Dolls et al are "feminist pop" or not.

Well, as I've stated before, I don't believe these bands are feminist.

Monkey61

,8,1 wrote: »

It is feminist on a number of different levels. Promotes lesbianism, sexual liberalism, promotes meme of separatism from men, undermines traditional morality, undermines traditional nuclear family and precursors thereof. You can't be seriously feminist if you don't do some or all of these things.

"Fake-lesbian song" is pretty inaccurate description of it, IMO. First of all it contains lesbian messages and secondly how do you know wheter Ms. Perry is lesbian or not.

God your so right, there's a real danger these days of people's inbuilt sexual preferences being influenced by the media. I always thought I was gay until I heard Natasha Bedingfield's "I want to have your babies" - now I'm happily married with a baby on the way. Thank the heavens for songs that contain heterosexual messages eh?

On a serious note though...come on people...matriarchal society??? Are you kidding me??? How anyone could actually believe the Pussycat girls etc are anything approaching feminist is baffling - Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me indeed.

I find Katy Perry quite offensive along with the overtones of homophobia in that particular song. Kissing girls to titillate your boyfriend and the CD buying public is about as far from feminism as you can get.

jill_valentine

First of all it contains lesbian messages

?

Katy Perry's song, apparently. wrote:

Hi Mum!

Regards,

Lesbians.

?

dr.bollocko

I cant help but notice that you are talking about this retarded and forgettable bit of pop nonsense as if it has some kind of message or merit beyond being fap material for 14 year olds. Even the musical mong in question couldnt defend her corner enough to think that this song has any reason to be puked out onto an unwilling public except to make a quick buck.

Nevyn

Acacia mentioning the "F" word tends to send ,8,1 off on the same rant time and time again.

Doghouse

DarkJager wrote: »

There is no rapper alive who will spend 3-4 minutes whining about an ex

Eminem for one. He spent whole albums whining about his ex.

As has been pointed out before, it's ridiculous that anyone could consider 'I Kissed A Girl' as feminist. If people are going to go on these anti-feminism spiels then the least they could do is make sure they know what they're talking about. Check out some proper feminist music like Le Tigre (as already suggested), Bikini Kill, Team Dresch, early Hole, PJ Harvey etc. and compare and contrast! Oh and they deal with other 'deeper' issues too;)

As for living in a matriarchal society? Hardly. Not when there are countries in the world where baby girls are left out on hillsides to die as they are considered 'less valuable' than boys, or where there are places where women aren't allowed to go out in public without being accompanied by a male relative. Even just in Ireland there's plenty of evidence to suggest this isn't the case. Where are the newspaper articles about how men's fertility declines with age and how they're spending their most fertile years climbing up the career ladder? Why the constant highlighting of 'female' binge drinking and not male?Why are most bosses men? Why do women (still) get paid less? Why isn't there proper childcare for working mothers that isn't prohibitively costly? Why is it still presumed that the woman will take the man's name when they marry and not vice versa? Etc etc. Yes there's much greater equality than there used to be - which is brilliant. But anyone who thinks this is a matriarchal society is clearly not a woman.

Anyway, apologies for taking this further off-topic.

DarkJager

Doghouse wrote: »

Eminem for one. He spent whole albums whining about his ex.

Wrong. IIRC, he had 1 song in which he talked about her but did not spend an entire album whinging about it.

Where are the newspaper articles about how men's fertility declines with age and how they're spending their most fertile years climbing up the career ladder?

Why is the pink ribbon project promoted a lot more over the blue ribbon? Are men somehow less worthy of treatment for such conditons?

Why the constant highlighting of 'female' binge drinking and not male?

Why the constant tarring of male drivers when female drivers are equally if not more dangerous?

Why are most bosses men?

They are easier to work with - this viewpoint is held by a lot of women I know as well.

Why do women (still) get paid less?

Depends what job or sector you're in, the women I've worked with are all on same level salaries as the males.

Why isn't there proper childcare for working mothers that isn't prohibitively costly?

Why is childcare presumed to be a burden only for women? Are men not allowed to show equal concern for their children as well?

Why is it still presumed that the woman will take the man's name when they marry and not vice versa?

A petty point. I don't think its presumed, people getting married should be mature enough to come to an agreement.