dansolomon.com
i give that shit the finger
Home / Ask Me Anything / about / clips / contact / archive

How Does It Feel? →

Over on ThinkProgress, Alyssa Rosenberg reacts to the (excellent) GQ feature on D’Angelo by Amy Wallace. Specifically, the following section:

But as D began to fall apart, the video would be the only thing many fans remembered. “The video was the line of demarcation,” says Harris. “It sent him spinning out of control.”…The trouble began right away, at the start of the Voodoo tour in L.A. “It was a week of warm-up gigs at House of Blues just to kick off the tour, draw some attention, break in the band,” says Alan Leeds, D’s tour manager then and now. “And from the beginning, it’s ‘Take it off!’ “…

D’Angelo felt tortured, Questlove says, by the pressure to give the audience what it wanted. Worried that he didn’t look as cut as he did in the video, he’d delay shows to do stomach crunches. He’d often give in, peeling off his shirt, but he resented being reduced to that. Wasn’t he an artist? Couldn’t the audience hear the power of his music and value him for that?

To which Rosenberg adds:

when a man experiences, gets driven crazy by it, it’s not really “some Kate Moss shit” anymore, and it’s not complementary. So much of pop culture is like this. When a man experiences objectification, or stays at home with his kids, suddenly, this arena that women have been playing in for decades is a revelation. How does it feel, indeed?

She’s right, of course, and D’Angelo is hardly the only example of a dude freaking out when he finds himself hyper-sexualized in that way. He looks trim and fit in the GQ photos, but do you remember what he looked like when he was arrested a few years back? The Internet loved to make fun of him for getting fat.

A similar thing happened to Elvis, of course, and to Brando. Jim Morrison, too. Two other dudes who were sexualized the way that we, as a society, sexualize women. Or, if they don’t put on a lot of weight, they do other things to mess with the way they look. They take on roles that reward them for looking unattractive, maybe, or they grow stupid beards, like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp,  if they’re able to let these things roll off their backs a bit. But it happens a lot, in any case, to men who are treated the way that women are — as objects, whose sexuality and appearance are public property.

Which is fascinating, in a way. Because so much of the rhetoric from dudes who talk about the way women are objectified is that they’d love it if they were sexualized in the same way. And it sounds like a dumb hypothetical, something that has no real connection to reality, because there’s no real equivalence between the way society does (or even can) treat men and the way it treats women.

Except, kinda, there is — and the way the men who do get treated that way tend to do whatever it takes to get out from under it. That’s probably worth considering, fellas, the next time you try to make that argument.

Source : GQ

Sarah Tressler Finally Speaks Out, Says We're "Mean" →

houstonpress:

Sarah Tressler, the Houston Chronicle society reporter who gained national, if not worldwide, fame for also being a stripper, made her first public statements.

Well, it was mean, guys. I’m not saying that it was a 100% illegitimate thing to report, but let’s not have it both ways: the post that outed Tressler was gleeful in its pursuit to link Tressler’s professional life as a writer and her pseudonymous work as a stripper (check the screenshots from her LinkedIn page and the phone calls to anyone who may have at one point been in a position to make decisions about her employment). The update about how she’s no longer with the Chronicle reads, in the full context of the piece, very much like a victory lap. Connelly’s defense against the accusation of “slut-shaming” is  disingenuous (“If you want to be a stripper, fine,” he says, after posting the LinkedIn page and calling the bosses of the part-time stripper he’s “fine” with), and the tone of the entire thing is obviously, gleefully mean-spirited.

Which, you know, is your business — I could credibly be accused of meanness from time to time myself, and the fact that we seem to differ when it comes to who’s a suitable target for it is no reason for pearl-clutching over the fact that Connelly’s posts are pretty clearly malicious. He doesn’t like the Houston Chronicle or strippers! He thinks Tressler’s a shitty writer! All of that is cool, I guess, or at least it’s within your right. But if that’s what you’re going to do, then smirking about how the person at the center of this thinks you’re “mean,” and pretending to be flabbergasted when people call out the slut-shaming you’re doing (note: the word “slut” need not appear for the tactic to be employed; in fact, it’s usually much more effective when the person employing it takes the tone of, “This woman is doing something sexual and that’s interesting!” because you look a little bit less like a bully) — it’s just disingenuous. High-five each other here, guys, you nailed it — or at least own up to what you were doing.

Source : houstonpress

KUT looks at the Unsung secret history of women in Texas music for new audio documentary →

The legend of Texas music has been well-told: the dusky cowboy — or at least cowboy fashion enthusiast — with a guitar on his back and a song in his heart, conveying feelings of heartache and whiskey through music, maybe with his buddies in the band, or maybe by himself in an old roadhouse somewhere. It’s one of the National Myths of Texas, from Bob Wills and Willie Nelson to the Geto Boys and Bun B.

There’s just one problem. Like most myths, it ignores reality. In this case, the truth that women — from Cindy Walker, who wrote countless classics of the Texas songbook, to Sarah Jaffe, Denton’s rising indie rock star — have been vital to the identity of Texas music from day one.

I really enjoyed interviewing David Brown about the documentary that his team at KUT put together on women in Texas music. The recording of the conversation was a little awkward, as two dudes trying to avoid co-opting the stories of the women they’re talking about might be, but I edited most of that out so the link up there is very readable — and listening to the audio documentary (90.5FM if you’re in Austin, presumably streaming online at KUT.org if you’re not) will let you hear the women involved tell their stories in their own voices. Stick around for the one about Shawn Colvin, it is fascinating.

Stock photos of women looking remorseful after sex.
It really is kind of remarkable that our culture has created a significant enough market for images like these that this page exists, isn’t it?

Stock photos of women looking remorseful after sex.

It really is kind of remarkable that our culture has created a significant enough market for images like these that this page exists, isn’t it?

Source : vagendamag.blogspot.com
[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]
Track: Off To The Races
Artist: Lana Del Rey
Caption:

Today’s song: “Off To The Races,” Lana Del Rey

1.
This was the first Lana Del Rey song that I heard that really stood out for me. I liked “Video Games” well enough — it’s a sad, pretty song, when you strip it of the controversy and context of it, and I always have room for that sort of thing — but “Off To The Races” felt like something a little different. It’s still full of the same sad prettiness, but it’s much more propulsive, with the pseudo-rapping in the chorus and the way the drums come in after the intro. It’s a cool song, and most of the real appeal of Lana Del Rey breaks down into the fact that she’s cool, highly stylized and important to the right-now. So it captures her well.

2.
I was listening to the song at my desk a week or two ago (it was on the EP she released to tease the album), and Kat came walking by and did her Lana Del Rey impression (she doesn’t like her). When LDR hit the baby-talk chorus — the “I’m your little harlot / blah blah blah” part, Kat jumped right into that register. It was funny, and it catches a lot of what people hate about her, too. The pandering, Annie’s-song-in-the-Community-Christmas-episode “sexy baby” thing she has going on. The lines that stand out in the song on first listen really do infantilize her: “Be a good baby, do what I want”; “I’m crazy, baby, I need you to come here and save me”; “kiss me on my open mouth, ready for you”; “keep me forever, tell me you own me”; “I’m so crazy, baby, I’m sorry that I’m misbehaving, I’m your little harlot”; “I’d die without him”; etc, etc — look at it in black and white, and it reads like exhibits A-F in The People Vs. Lana Del Rey’s Pandering To The Impulses Of Dudes Who Want A Servile Woman To Swim Around In A Bikini To Thank Them For Rescuing Her.

3.
In fact, this comes up a lot when talking about Lana Del Rey. Half of the criticism is the sort of basic slut-shaming that likes to see a pretty girl fail at something because she probably didn’t earn her success, and look at those lips, she totally get plastic surgery when Her People came in and took her and created this image and gave her this new name and identity, and she’s so inauthentic….

4.
Which is weird, right? Because, like, nobody talks about how A$AP Rocky is all inauthentic because he self-released some music that caught ears at a big label who decided to package him as the Next Big Thing. They don’t go on and on about his handlers and the people pulling his strings. They don’t talk about Skrillex like he’s some guy who wanted to get famous at any cost, who was kind of placed on a fame-carousel and when the first bite at the apple as a pop-punk guitarist didn’t work, the machine jumped to turn him into a hot-shit dubstep act. They don’t strip those dudes of their agency despite the fact that their stories are not really any more inspiring or authentic than “daughter of dot-com billionaire makes record under Disney-sounding real name ‘Lizzy Grant,’ then re-emerges a year later as Mad Men-inspired sexpot Lana Del Rey!” A$AP Rocky is the savior of hip-hop and Skrillex is mega-important, and neither of those dudes is a DIY act struggling under his real name without the machine of what remains of the music industry behind them. And that’s fine — James Osterberg and Robert Zimmerman and guys like that, they came from similar places — but it’s only Lana Del Rey who has a zillion angry posts coming from every direction about how she’s fake and sucks and a product.

5.
So anyway, there’s the other half of the criticism, which comes from feminism, or the feminist-minded, and it looks at the lines like the ones from “Off To The Races” and states — as this dude who’s friends with a friend of mine did when we were discussing her on Facebook — that “not since the mid-1960s has a female artist done more to roll back the clock on women’s rights in her music.” They dismiss with hasty derision, as this post by a dude who writes for Austinist does, the “bored theoreticians who will prop up her weak work by insisting she’s doing some kind of complicated gender dance, toying with power and submission,” and insist that “reality” is just that she sucks, and is selling out her gender by writing songs that appeal so blatantly to the male libido — that, ultimately, it’s all about dudes.

6.
Which brings us back to “Off To The Races,” which is a song I decided to spend more time with after hearing the baby-talk bits and getting sucked into the Lana Del Rey Drama of 2012. Like, I actually listened to the rest of the words to the song and stuff.

Here’s what I found: It’s a pretty by-the-numbers Chandler-esque noir story, really, but this time told from the point of view of the woman. She’s a Vegas girl with a dark secret, living on the run, and she’s hooked herself to some bad guy to keep somebody tough between her and the past. Not exactly the first rendition of this tale we’ve ever heard, but cool, and legit. It also means that, when she dips into the sexy-baby stuff, she’s singing directly to this fictional guy, and the character she’s playing in the song does this as a means of manipulation. It’s not really that complicated: the words are right here, and they’re pretty direct. It’s a Dashiell Hammett story about a femme fatale, but she’s the only character we get. It’s not groundbreaking, but it’s not the same as a crass “boop-da-boop-de-boop SEX!” play on her audience.

7.
Which is what really gets to me about all of the Lana Del Rey stuff: the notion that she is this thing, this creation of the moneyed-up Music Industry Machine designed to appeal directly to the libidos of male critics (that’s nearly a direct quote from a now-deleted Tumblr post from Amy Andronicus, I think), as opposed to an artist, and a storyteller. Because she sings pop songs, and so she’s singing mostly in the first person to “a you that the singer sings to” (as Ani Difranco put it way back when), and so there’s not much audible difference between a song that sings to “you” from the singer’s point of view, and one in which the singer is playing a role. It all sounds kind of the same, and we have an easy time mixing it up.

8.
I mean, last week we all got super psyched about someone who claimed to figure out what day was Ice Cube’s good day.

9.
But obviously she is telling stories in her songs, because “Off To The Races” is about a girl who’s at risk of getting sent to Ryker’s Island for whatever bad shit she did in her past. Lana Del Rey is in no more danger of going to Ryker’s Island than Ice Cube is of spotting the words “Ice Cube’s a pimp” on the Goodyear Blimp, as J Smooth put it last week. So the notion that this isn’t any sort of commentary, that she’s not playing a role, is just weird. And — yeah — sexist.

10.
Because when Matthew Weiner creates a subservient, sexpot in early 60’s dress, nobody complains that he’s rolling back the clock on women’s rights for creating Betty Draper. Because we’re prepared to see his art — like that of A$AP Rocky, and Skrillex — as the authentic creations of a man who is saying something. But we treat the very notion that Lana Del Rey might actually have something to say, and a viewpoint behind her art, and some personal agency of her own, as theories created by bored people who are building complexity into the work that couldn’t possibly be there intentionally.

11.
And, you know, fuck that. Because “Off To The Races” is a pretty good song, and it may not be breaking new ground for gender equality or whatever, but since when is that a requirement of every woman who picks up a fucking microphone? That’s the thing about Lana Del Rey: she’ll never be considered in the same terms as an A$AP Rocky or a Skrillex — that is, as a musician — but only ever as a product, only ever as a statement. It’s always going to be about what she means, even if you’re defending her. And, yeah, I’m sure she’s crying about that all the way to the bank or whatever, but there’s something kind of fucked up about the fact that “manufactured” dude stars like those guys just get to rock shows and put out new music, while she has to either be selling out her entire gender, or she has to be defended in terms that elevate her above these things.

12.
Fact is, it’s just a pretty fucking good record. Compelling stories, strong melodies, sad-but-not-too-sad, well-produced and really easy to listen to. Maybe we can let the rest of that shit go, for a while, and just enjoy her music. Cool?

(note: while I was working on this, Jessica Hopper went live with a story with similar points for Spin, which features more actual reporting from people who know her and less swearing. You should read it. As for me, I’ll just be psyched to be in similar company to Hopper, who is a very smart writer.)

Source : soundcloud.com

Marcia Mount Shoop: "NFL stands for 'No Family Life.'" →

Links ahoy today! This one is neat: Marcia Mount Shoop, wife of former Chicago Bears offensive coordinator John Shoop, blogs about what “long hours” mean when you’re talking about working on an NFL coaching staff, and what it’s like to be married to someone who is expected to be at work 19 hours a day during the season. (Imagine how hard it is to be married to a coach whose playcalling is more complex than “three runs up the middle, then punt”!*)

Anyway — she talks about how she has a career, too, and the inequities there. Which is stuff that most people who read this blog are well-versed in, but it’s interesting to hear a woman who is married to a football coach write about it in her own words.

*Obligatory “John Shoop is not popular amongst Bears fans” snark, sorry, Marcia.

I spent my entire pregnancy in county by choice. The district attorney had gone as low as they were going to go with an offer of 4 years and I had come to terms with that but I had spoken to other women and heard their experience with going to the big girl prison pregnant. They would go to a medical unit and have the baby and if they were lucky they would get to spend an hour or two with the baby. If no one showed up within a specified time frame of a couple of days to pick up the baby then it would go to the State. I knew that if I put off my sentencing until after the baby was born that I would get to spend two to three days in the same room with my baby, and I wanted that opportunity.

Lauren Johnson writes about the experience of being pregnant, and giving birth, while incarcerated, over at the Conspire Theatre blog.

I won’t go into the whole fundraising pitch again, but helping women find a way to tell these sorts of stories is exactly what Conspire does, and they are halfway through their first IndieGoGo fundraising campaign. Can you help?

Why It's Time For The NFL To Hire Some Lady Referees (And Maybe Announcers And Coaches, Too) →

“Challenges are about to get real emotional,” said one commenter on NBC’s ProFootballTalk.com; “But… but… but… there’s no crying in football!” another said, quoting a movie directed by a woman; “This just seems like a bad idea. Some player is going to say something that a guy would shrug off, but the female ref is going to take it to the league office as harassment,” still another predicted; “We all know most women base decisions on there[sic] emotions” seemed to be the summation of the viewpoints. It goes on like this for at least half of the 136 comments (as of Saturday night) on the post at PFT.

It’s a weird outrage, seemingly borne out of the same urge that Calvin had when he declared himself Dictator-For-Life of G.R.O.S.S. – like, can’t we have one thing that yucky girls aren’t allowed into? And most of the griping is a search for after-the-fact justification. Some of the comments on PFT hide behind a smokescreen of “what if a woman ref gets clobbered by a linebacker by mistake,” a concern that seems oddly placed, given that the current average age for a male NFL official is about 93. But mostly, it’s this declaration that women are too emotional, and will thus screw up the great game of football.

And that’s weird for a couple of reasons: First, we insist upon emotion when it comes to sports. At least half of the league, and the people who follow it, are still snickering at Jay Cutler for failing to make an appropriate frowny-face while sitting on the sideline after suffering a grade II MCL tear in the NFC Championship Game; meanwhile, when the U.S. Women’s soccer team lost a heartbreaking World Cup final to Japan in July, Hope Solo and Abby Wambach shed no tears, unlike Tim Tebow and LeBron James did after losing their respective championships.

There’s nothing shameful about LeBron or Tebow having a powerful emotional response to coming up short on something they’d dedicated their lives to achieving, but it betrays a basic hypocrisy: Not only do we demand that men in sports respond to things emotionally, but the available evidence suggests that there’s no reason to believe that women respond more emotionally on the field than men do. So what the hell, guys?

As promised, this week’s Down And Distance column is live at CultureMap. It’s about the NFL’s plan to hire some lady refs in the near future, the reaction to it, and why it’s past time for all major American sports to re-assess the roles they have available to women.

If you like it — share it, tweet it, “like” it, Digg it, the whole deal, please!

So, the NFL is planning to hire its first women as referees.

And holy cow, are dudes freaked out about it.

This week’s installment of my sports column, Down And Distance, over at CultureMap deals with this in depth. In the meantime, here are some of the comments that went up after I filed the column, and the sheer frightened rage they contain.

At first glance, I assumed this guy called the woman ref for the NCAA and UFL being quoted “honey” because he was trying to be condescending. Based on his sample dialogue, though, the only women he’s ever heard speak are in kindergarten, so he was probably just being friendly.

My very favorite of the ridiculous arguments — made several times in the response to the post at ProFootballTalk that these are culled from — is that a woman in a position of authority might make biased calls because she could secretly be having an affair with one of the players. Which is true and all, but if we’re talking secret scandals, it’s also totally possible that a male ref could be making bullshit calls because he’s protecting a dude he’s having an affair with! Did I just blow your mind?

Because the most popular and widely-watched sport in the country desperately needs to drum up some publicity by infuriating a tiny handful of the craziest parts of its fanbase, while the rest of the people who care about the game can say, Oh, okay, it’s catching up with the 21 century, cool. Also, a lot of current (dudely) NFL officials are really old, but they just don’t use them as umpires or line judges so they are safely away from the action. They could do that if some of the eventual women on the field are smaller, too!

Oh, pretty sure no one is touching, dude — and probably not looking, either.

Really, this comment kind of sums it up — the fear and loathing of women “taking away” something that “belongs” to men is the theme of all of these comments, regardless of if they pull the “women are too emotional” card, “women aren’t knowledgeable enough,” “women would get clobbered by a linebacker,” or whatever. It’s toxic thinking for a lot of reasons.

Stay tuned for the column on Monday, where I write about this thoughtfully and don’t just make fun of people. (Though I’m sure I did that, too.)

ETA: This week’s column is now live. Give it a read, will you?

I’d just like to point out to the people who were all, “I don’t watch women’s sports because they’re too touchy-feely and emotional” that Hope Solo cried fewer on-camera tears after losing her championship than LeBron James or Tim Tebow did after losing theirs.

There’s obviously not anything wrong with LeBron or Tebow having an emotional reaction to coming up short on something that they’ve dedicated their lives to trying to achieve, but let’s at least toss out our stereotypes here. Keep searching for a non-hypocritical reason why women’s sports are stupid, dudes! You’ll find one eventually.